the facts of this case go back to the two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve timeframe where my climb istra lawson undertook a project to perform several major repairs and alterations to a customer and one seventy two aircraft one of the alterations he was going to undertake was a a change to the engine in and propeller and installing a higher horsepower engine and install a constant speed propeller as opposed to the original equipment which had a fixed pitch propeller which is essentially a piece of aluminum twisted to provide thrust a constant speed propeller has two blades installed into a hub that are adjustable in flight to provide more efficiency  power in flight so this was the nature of the modification and it's kind of where this case the hook the heart of this dispute arises in the course of doing this modification he has to  obtain f a a approval and that can be obtained several ways mr lawson had actually done this exact modification in the past and he had used what's called an s t c a supplemental type certificate and this is in the form of a patent of sorts where someone else has has gone to the trouble of of doing research and getting this modification certified in the f a a signs off on it and issues in s t c and mr lawson had done this exact modification using a nasty scene pass however the s t c was not available when he wanted to undertake this particular modification and if the s t c isn't available then you can't use it so mr lawson opted for an alternate method of a cation which was essentially called a field approval under a field approval the mechanic will get with his his inspector from the from the f a a office and provide information to that inspector as to why this why this modification can be done and one of the things that he can provide is evidence that his it has been done in the past and in fact approved in the past and in this case mr lawson provided evidence to the to his inspector that he had done it in the past and provided documentation on those prior modifications he also provided information that cessna itself had come up with a configuration identical to this with the same engine and a constant spe  engine the i o means it's an injected engine and an opposed cylinders three sixty is the cubic inch displacement and then the last number is a series number a b c v and that just that just in those various minor modifications it could be a fuel system difference a prop governor difference or something minor but the essential engine is the same and cessna had installed this engine and propeller configuration in production aircraft so that also was something that mr l approval of the the the dispute arises on on what the approval consisted of that he received back from the f a a and the reason it's important what he submitted because the t was not available so he had to go an alternate route and when he gets the approval back from the f a a his understanding is that it has been approved under field approval based on the data he supplied one of a part of the data being the s t c that was no longer available but when the when the f a a when a different inspector looks at this case and starts investigating it and running it up as a as a violation he's under the mindset that mr lawson had the  installed this modification in strict conformity with the s t c when that was never the intent and was never discussed between i thought you looked at the forms three thirty seven and because in your brief you even say look the the guy he was working with put in this language and he basically just signed it or something to that effect but i thought it was pretty clear maybe even undisputed although i guess he testified differently about that type of engine but that  promised one engine and a different one showed up it was promised us seventy eight inch prop in an eighty and showed up he was promised steel rivets and aluminum rivet showed up so all that's in the documentation so it doesn't i mean if that's in the documentation he signs the documentation this is what i put in and a later inspector looks at it that seems like he doesn't have need a s t c or anything else it's contrary to what's in the documentation well with regard to the engine issue i'll take the first the engine that mr lawson built up for this for this modification was a g engine and but that particular g engine had a cracked engine case and the cases essential are the same as a block in a car but it comes in two halve both together and the case is actually the component that has the data tag that is attached to the case that denotes with them the model ins and so forth and on the engine is so that the case was cracked so mr lawson had to get a substitute case and the case he got was from an engine that had also been a jeep but had been converted to a k through some minor modification to and he testified to this in the ail day specifically said he was less than credible on this issue i think like two twenty four write page twenty four he says he testified to it i don't believe well but the f a a inspector admittedly he did nothing to determine what engine was in this aircraft he looked at no components of the end of the engine he looked at no parts man as he did absolutely zero to determine what the engine actually was he looked at one thing and that was the data tag and the only evidence before the court was that the data tag was wrong and the and the board got that right the board said this is a case of an incorrect data tag and that was right in their opinion they got it right they say they saw what happened that's not all speculation that's that's failure to change a data tag back that's that's defective maintenance at what about about the prop which no one claims i mean he didn't put in a seventy eight prop correct the point in eighty and well no actually he put in a seventy six inch at the time the aircraft was released it had a seventy six inch prop which is the stock propeller the eighty inch was put in later not on this not on the center that they claim is falsified it was put in later when the aircraft had been moved to a facility where the float provisions were to be installed the floats and so forth were to be installed that's where the propeller was installed and  here's the follow with a d s propeller a chute that propeller is approved for that aircraft in a in a seaplane configuration you do not need any approval to do that the only approval in the s t c or the field approval that was being sought was a fixed pitch i mean it was a change from a fixed pitch to a constant speed it could be any diameter approved it could be anywhere from seventy six seventy eight or eighty the constant peak propeller modification was what the s t c in the field approval plied to  and he saw the eighty entia later on not at the time it was returned to service yes yes but the the hope dispute comes down to mr lawson agreeing with inspector moore that this is going to be this is the modification is going to be done and there's no s t c available mr moore knew that mr lawson knew what they talked about it the more prepares the paperwork which wasn't even proper under f a a protocols for mr inspector more to do the paperwork it was a back to lawson mr lawson looks at us as ok if this is what he wants me to use i'll sign off on it it wasn't his choice but he's thinking he's being told by his supervisor in essence this is what i want you to do he signs off on it it's not falsification when it's a document that the f a a author and and he all the faults with cation cases that are out there that i've read involve an airman doing something that the f a a knows nothing about and the f a a learns about it later this is a situation where the f a a is actively involved in the in the drafting process repel yes your honor it's listed on page five it says the model one seventy two eat plain configuration diameter not to exceed eighty inches and it and it's right in the attachments i have so mr lawson may please the court my name is just think about gomez and i represent the federally the asian ministration the central issue in this case is whether revocation of mr vasanth mechanic certificate and his inspection authorization is warranted where the board found credible and substantial evidence of numerous instances of intentional foster vacation of the aircraft maintenance records on which the f a a relies to insure aviation safety as general backgrounds the records that mr lawson falsified our form three thirty seven these are very important forms from the f a a they're required to be completed by mechanics that are performing any major alterations in regard to his argument that he was constantly consulting inspectors getting these approved that the other forms approve these things and that he argues the labor the board itself for example with regards to the engine found in his favor alternately right that the g tag versus k tag that it was just didn't change the tag and had nothing to do with the engine your honor mr lawson's representation on that point is is incorrect to the board found in favor of the f a a that in fact a k model engine was installed in the aircraft it found mr lawson's claim that he simply forgot to change the placard on the engine data plate less than credible as your honor noted it and the board referred to the credibility determination on this point which the l j relied on mr lawson's own testimony and inspector stephany's testimony inspector cepheids testified that during the investigation interview with mr lawson he himself admitted that he had installed a k model engine that he believed both engines were the same the only difference being that he thought the oil capacity was different and that he simply had to remark the oil dipstick your honor this is in the transcript at the joint appendix on pages ninety three ninety one and one twenty two through twenty three your other there are significant differences despite m representation in this case between a k model and a g model engine those engines have different horse power ratings they have different operating ranges and as mr lawson himself noted they also have different oil capacities this court refers deflect responsibility in this case over the course of four months mr lawson worked with inspector moore one inspector back and forth their draft form three thirty seven's in the record in the joint appendix they indicate that mr lawson's original submission to the f a a request approval for the installation of the k model engine however as mr lawson testified and as is noted in that draft form three thirty seven mr lawson crossed out during a phone call with mr moore indicating that he did not have a proof for the k and that he was to install a g model engine that's noted in the joint appendix in his own draft form three thirty seven in mr lawson's own handwriting additionally your honor there's no approval from the f a a for the installation of an eighty inch propeller in this aircraft what is up the fact that cessna approves it and that he submitted  your honor mr lawson submitted as part of the data approval for the form three thirty seven one dealing with the engine in this case the engine installation instructions x p one zero one three eight one one those installation instructions they referenced in the the approved model list that's on the back of that s t c they reference exactly which installation instruction is applicable the one i just reference is the a political installation  structure on page two sixty seven of the joint appendix in that installation struction it's specifically calls out that for the mcauley constant speed propeller engine it is not to be a diameter of over seventy six inches mr lawson recognize this that is why he was asking for field approval that form three thirty seven approved a deviation from that seventy six inch propeller to a seventy eight inch propeller that's the intended purpose of block three of a form three documents which i have not seen that a seaplane version can have an eighty and propeller however mr lawson himself testified that he returned this aircraft to service as a land plane not as a seaplane he also testified and admits he installed the seventy six inch propeller to test fly the aircraft then swapped in the eighty inch propeller and warned the aircraft owner not to fly the aircraft your honor  this goes to mr lawson's approval of the airworthiness certificate of this aircraft mr lawson in his annual inspection certification signed off that this aircraft was airworthy when he in fact warrant the owner himself not to operate this aircraft with that eighty inch propeller and was unwilling to test fly the aircraft in that eighty inch propeller yawner mr lawson also falsified the lower firewall installation entry he indicated that he installed that lower fire wall in accordance with cessna's manual now cessna's manual require stainless steel rivets and that's extremely important because those are fireproof that's necessary in case there's an engine fire it protects the occupants of that aircraft from the fire reaching them mr lawson however used aluminum rivets which are not fireproof and then certified that he had installed the lower firewall in accordance with the manual requiring stainless steel rivets your honor are numerous instances of intentional falsified cation in this case it's the fission based on n t s b precedent and circuit precedent that a single instance of intentional foster vacation warrants revocation of all that individual certificates here mr lawson's revocation of his mechanic certificate and his inspection authorization is warranted on this case where he's trying to work would be inspectors why not something less than all out because the individual lacks the necessary care judgement and responsibility to exercise the all the privileges that have been granted to him under that certificate in this case where mr lawson falsified records which are integral that the f a a relies on being accurate complete and comprehensive he falsified those records the f a a relies on the cooperation of each airman in the system to ensure that those records are accurate a mechanic who falsifies into a girl records of major alterations and repairs of an aircraft that are stored with the f a a for the life of the aircraft and on which each subsequent aircraft and any future mechanics performing work on the aircraft realized nothing less than revocation is warranted especially considering that there are numerous instances of falsified cation in this case your honor f your honor one additional factor i would like to point out here is mr lawson claims that he was he was surprised the inspectors did not speak to each other that proves the point in this case that the records are what the inspectors rely on one inspector in one region may not necessarily be able to reach out to another inspector in one region he may retire he may not be available the records should speak for themselves here the a l j found that the form three thirty seven's and the aircraft maintenance records were plain on their face mr lawson himself demonstrated an apparent unwillingness to even consult the s t c and was evasive in his answers responding about his knowledge requiring him to comply with that s t c he also testified that he indicated he didn't even read the form three thirty seven before he performed the work but that when he did before he signed that block sixty and blocks  conformity inspection and the return to service entry that he had concerns about signing those documents at that at that point he had the opportunity to reach out to any inspector with he had which whom he had previously worked with and he chose not to do so your honor here with the board has found numerous instances of intentional falsification and a single one is sufficient for revocation the sanction cannot be said to be accordingly unless this court has further questions i ask that the court deny the petition for review and affirm the n t s b revocation of mr lawson's mechanic certificate and his inspection authorization please the court the first issue i'd like to take up is the is that a clarification on the a t f propellor issue and the court can find this document it's document ten filed in february of this year page seventy seven for future reference regarding the f propellor approval by the f a a for the one seventy two seaplane configuration secondly the council essentially confirmed what i had said earlier that that the the eighty's repeller wasn't put on at the time this aircraft was returned to service in december of fourteen it was put on a later date after the aircraft had been moved to the facility where the floats were going to be installed because it was for a float configuration only that's the only time that an eighty inch propeller was appropriate and mr lawson installed the propeller and told the customer don't fly the aircraft until the floats are put on so you're so you're little and that since they've been confirmed by opposing counsel with regard to the the falsification on the firewall the the pulse the cation allegation comes from the fact that mr lawson said he did the repair in accordance with us in the manual it didn't say exactly what manual or what what year the menu came out or anything but he did and he specifically didn't say  approve it the manufacturer in this case a cessna said aluminum rivets or satisfactory and he had it but they accepted and if you look at the transcript it means seventy nine the excepted that this required didn't alter that in this case right now one altered it is what the ail jay and then the board accepted was that this required steel rivets the manual that was referred to required the manual referred to in the see isn't the f a a the ultimate authority and not the manufacturer of the airplane they will defer to the manufacturer or they could but i mean the f a a requires something the mechanic is required to follow the f a a rather than the manufacturer's recommendations and if you look at the f a a is guidance on performing inspections or on on time change items they will say defer to the manufacturer's recommendations because the manufacturer is the one with the technical expertise but even  is with with that sign off and counsel points to the thunderbird case which is a completely different case involving a propeller overhaul in that case the nuts used were a standard in mass not as opposed to the factory manufactured not that had two different part numbers and in that case the mechanic said i used it and he listed the hard part number when in fact he used the generic m s part number is a totally different situation than than what's involved here this was strictly a sign off saying i did it in accordance with the manufacturers or were in accordance with the manual but the mr lawson went back and tried to get approval from cessna did get approval and tried to show that to the f a a that we have approval for this they don't want to look at it they want their violation but wait they excluded it because you failed to get it certified as a business record well trick that i think it was on all the time so they weren't they didn't have some other ulterior motive they followed their own rules and they they had no interest typically not a false for cation issue is just simply bad maintenance and then the engine sign off we've talked about the g versus k the the three three seven the first one dealing with him i want to wrap up your in life and i just want to say for these