### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON,D. C.


### IN THEMATTEROF: DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0807 PAZAVIATION, INC. FAA CASENO. 2011S0190272 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan 

## DOCKET

FAA'SRESPONSE TORESPONDENT'S FEBRUARY 19, 2015, MOTION TODISMISS 

### The Federal Aviation Administration, (hereinafter "FAA"), by and through the undersigned counsel, requests thatthis Court deny the Respondent's February 19, 2015, Motion to Dismissbased onthe following: I. 

### On November 19, 2014, this Court issued an Order Adopting Proposed Briefmg Schedule and Setting Motion Conference, which required the FAA to file its Responsive Brieftothe Respondent's Briefin SupportofitsMotionto Dismiss. 2. On February 10, 2015, the FAA timely filed its responsive brief, and sent a copy of said brief to the Respondent's counsel at P.O. Box 669122-9428, Miami, Florida, 33135. (See Gov'tExhibit 1)1 

### 3. On February 19, 2015, the Respondent filed a second Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds thatthe FAAfailed to file itsresponsivebrief.

1 The FAA obtainedthe address for Respondent's counsel from the Court's Orderreferenced inparagraph 1, supra. However, it appears that the address for Respondent's counsel has changed to P.O. Box 669122, Miami, Florida, 33166-9428, as listed in Respondent'sFebruary 19,2015,Motion to Dismiss. A copy ofthe FAA'sResponse to the Respondent's February 19, 2015, Motion to Dismiss will be sent to counsel's updated address as referenced in the Certificate ofService.

### 4. Contrary to the Respondent's allegation, the FAAtimely filed its responsive brief, as evidencedby GovermnentExhibit 1. 5. Based onthe foregoing, the Respondent'smotionis dueto be denied. Respectively sub ittedthis 

# 2

**r~** day of



# {tf,~~/, 2015.

2

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Response to Respondent's February 19,2015, Motion to Dismiss was sentto the following viacertifiedmail: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: HearingDocketClerk, AGC-430 WilburWrightBuilding- Suite2Wl000 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 DavidM. McDonald, Esq. McDonald & 

### McDonald Attorneys atLaw P.O. Box 669122 Miami, FL 33166-9428 Telephone: (305) 643-5313 Facsimile: (305) 643-4990 

# illCJYVYUD



# ~**Oo~** Donna Stanley · LegalAssistant Office oftheRegional Counsel 

## FEB 2 6 20!5 Dated



### 3

# • 

# • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

## HFARING DOCKET
FAACAsENQ.201 IS0190272 

### Respondent JudgeJ.E. Sullivan,
FAA'S RESPONSE TORESPONDENT'S MOTION TODISMISS 

### Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order Adopting Proposed Briefing Schedule and Setting --Motion Conference, dated December 23,2014,the FAA files this response to the Complainant's

motion to dismiss. The Agency requests thatthis Court denythe Complainant's motion based on the information contained herein. Procedural History I

### Facts Between June of 2009 and April of 20II, the Respondent performed maintenance, overhauled, and/ortested approximately forty-eight aircraft parts. 1

### (Exhibit I). On or about June 21, 20II, FAA Aviation Inspector Ernst Biamby inspected multiple work orders of the Respondent an,d as a result, determined the Respondent neither had, nor used, the required tools to perform the maintenance, overhaul, and/or testing referenced in the work orders. (Exhibit 2). Moreover, Respondent's employeeprovideda signedstatement that he didnotproperly test an aircraftpart

### because ofa "lack oftooling."2 

### (Exhibit 3). The specific testing equipment at issue is referenced in Boeing Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) Flight Spoiler Power Unit 1 One ofthese is parts is a Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, part number 65-44561-15, serial number 8356, as referenced in Respondent's work ordernumber PAZ-25837. 2The partreferencedby the Respondent's employeeis same partreferenced in in footnote I. 

### Government 

### Exhibit

# :L

# f

# r
Control Assembly 27-60-41. (Exhibit I) (Exhibit4). On or aboutJune 23, 2011, the FAA issued a Letter ofInvestigation ("LOI") to the Respondent, which notified the Respondent that is was under investigation for performing maintenance, overhaul, and/or testing to the forty-eight aircraftparts withoutusing the required tools ortestingprocedures. (Exhibit I). On July 8, 2011, the Respondent submitted aresponse to the LOI. 

### On or about May 24, 2012, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty ("Notice"),3 

### and on April 18, 2013, the parties participated in an informal conference to discuss the allegations enumerated in the Notice. At the informal conference, the Respondent indicated that it would submit additional information in support of its defense that it had and used the required tools to maintain, overhaul, and/or test the forty-eight aircraftparts. Almost ayear later on June 20, 2014, tlieResj.lonaent submitted said information. (Exhibit 5). Shortly thereafter, the FAA issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on September 24, 20144 

### On or about October 1, 2014, the Respondentfiled arequest for a hearing. Six days later, on October 7, 2014, the FAA filed its Complaint. On January 23, 2015, the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Law arguing that the FAA's Complaint should be dismissed based on the equitable doctrine oflaches. Argument Because the Respondent is asserting the affirmative defense of laches, the Respondent bears the burden of proof. Matter ofJohn J 

### Carroll, 

### FAA Order No. 90-21, Docket No CP89NE0285, Order Served August 16, 1990. In order to prevail on a laches affirmative defense, the Respondent must show that (1) 

### the FAA inexcusably delayed in bringing the instant

3 The Notice ofProposed Civil Penaltyreferences the same allegations and violations contained in the Complaint. 4 The Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty references the same allegations and violations contained in the Complaint. 

### 2

### action against the Respondent and (2) that as a result ofthe delay, the Respondent is prejudiced in its defense ofthe action. 

### !d. Pursuant to the applicable statute oflimitations, the FAA has five-years from the time the violations occurred to commence an action. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. See also Matter of JohnJ 

### Carroll. 

### As to the first element, the FAA did not delay commencing the action in this matter. The FAA issued the Respondent an LOI one month after the FAA became aware of the violations contained in the Complaint. (Exhibit 1 ). The LOI referenced each 

### work order alleged to contain an aircraft part for which the Respondent maintained, overhauled, and/or tested withoutthe propertooling. As a result, the Respondentreceivedboth a timely and detailednotice ofthe FAA's allegations. (Exhibit 1). Additionally, the Notice ofProposed Certificate Action, Final N"o1lce ofProposed CertificateAction, and Complain!were each issued or filed within 

### the five-year statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has failed to show that the Agency inexcusably delayed bringing the instant action against the Respondent. With regard to the second element, the Respondent has not shown that it has been prejudiced in its defense ofthe action. First, the Respondent fails to address the fact that its employee admittedthat the Respondentdidnothaveproper tooling. 

### (Exhibit 3). This admission defeats the Respondent's allegationthat itis prejudiced inpresenting a defense inthis matter. Second, the Respondent claims that its engineering consultant, Jack Batista, will testify that he assisted in creating blueprints for the testing equipment required to service the parts referenced in the Complaint. The Respondent asserts that it expects Batista to testify that the privately built testing equipment was equivalent to thatrequired by the manufacturer. However,

3

### the Respondent states it has been unable to locate Batista, and as result, is prejudiced m presenting its defense that ithad the proper equipmentto servicethe aircraftparts. To the contrary, the FAA submits that Batista's testimony is not dispositive to the issue about which he is expected to testify. The Respondent has not indicated why an independent, appropriately qualified, engineer cannot opine that the Respondent's privately built testing equipmentis equivalent tothatrequired by the manufacturer. In the alternative, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent conducted a due-diligence search for the witness. Rather, the Respondent has offered only a simple allegation that Batista cannot be contacted. Because the Respondent has offered nothing more, the Respondenthas not shownthat it has beenprejudiced. Next, the Respondent asserts in its briefit is prejudiced because Ledo Industri;u Machine Shop ("Ledo") went out of business after the FAA issued the LOI to the Respondent. The Respondent alleges that it shipped its privately builttesting equipment to Ledo for the purpose of separating two components contained on one stand 

### to two components on two stands. 

### The Respondent asserts that Ledo (or an employee ofLedo) would testify about the work performed onthe testing equipment. However, theRespondent claims Ledo is no longer in business, and as aresult, Ledo (or an employee ofLedo) is unable to corroborate the Respondent's position. First, the Respondent fails to state the period oftime that elapsed between the date the FAA issued its LOI and the date Ledo ceased operations. This timeline is importantto determine whetherthe Respondent had the opportunity to inquire with Ledo priorto the company going out ofbusiness, and what, ifany, inquiry the Respondent conducted. Second, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent conducted

### -a due-diligence search for any Ledo employees. The Respondent suggests that because Ledo is no longer in business, the 

### 4

### Respondent is hopeless in obtaining any relevant information. Without more, the Respondent is unable to substantiate that it has been prejudiced. As a result, the Respondent has not satisfied its burden. 

### See also Matter of John Carroll ("Respondent has not alleged the type ofprejudice that has been held to support a laches defense: that the delay resulted in a loss of evidence or witnesses supporting his position, or that he changed his position in a way that would not have occurredby for the delay.") Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has failed to establish an affirmative defense of laches, in that the Respondent has not shown that (I) 

### the FAA inexcusably delayed in bringing the instantactionagainst the Respondent and that (2)_ th.e __

**~espondent** 

### suffered actualprejudice as a result. Therefore, the Respondent has not carried its burden; as such, its motion to dismiss the Complaint mustbe denied. Respectively su mittedthis 

# I o.J1. ,day of 

# E ,{,

**~ 1~,**  2015.
William Vines Counsel for Complainant

5

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was sent to the following via certified mail: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 ..a 

### Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WlOOC fT""

.r. <0

# "-----~~:::1~~~--~~jr--~---------=~ The Honorable J.E. Sullivan ·

## ;;j r,,,g, $ 

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 David M. McDonald, Esq. ····-----McDonald &**McDona~-----** 

### Attomeys at Law P.O. Box 669122-9428 Miami, FL 33135-2321 Telephone: (305) 643-5313 Facsimile: (305) 643c4990

# ~~~e~Qj\ Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel**~EB** 

## 10 2015 Dated ..ll 

### ;rn

..ll tr

. r-

<0 r'l ru r'l 0 0 0 0 0 ru "r'l

::r r'l 0rr'l Certified Fee CJ Return Receipt Fee [------------ 

# g (Endorsement Required) Restricted De!iveiY Fee 

### [------J Cl (Endorsement Requirsd) 0 ru r'l

Postage $ Ce1iified Foe Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) 

### r----

. r'l

. CJ

CJ CJ Restricted Delivery Fee 

## r------J (Endorsement Required)

Postage $ Certili€dFee Return Receipt Fee {Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required}

Total Postage & Fees 

### $ Postmark Here

# r I' I [ 

# . I f Postmarl\j

Here

Postma.& 1 k HereF 

## tU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### JUN 2 32011 South Florida Flight Standards District Office 19



### CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT EIR Number 201 JSOJ90272 Mr. Jay Eugene Allen Accountable Manager PAZ Aviation. Inc. 7455 West 2"" Court Hialeah, Florida 330I4 DearMr. Allen: 2895 SW 145th Avenue, Su11e 120 Miramar. Flor1da 33027

This letter is to inform you we are investigating an incident that involve an article overhauled by Paz Aviation, Inc. (PAZ), a 14 CFR part 145 Repair Station certillcatc #XPZRI851, which failed during operation. The subject Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, P/N 65-44561-15, 

### SIN 8356, had the following maintenance performed by PAZ. • Work Order PAZ-25831, Overhauled May27, 20!0, • Work Order PAZ-27429, Tested September 27,2010. • Work Order PAZ-29345, Repairerl April27, 2011. On June 20,2011, this office visited PAZ, and interviewed PAZ management and employees. Our interview with Mr. Antonio Yanez, the technician who performed maintenance on the subject article, revealed he did not use the required tools or test procedures after maintenance and also stated "the unit was not tested I00% for lack of' tooling". Further investigation revealed PAZ was unable to provide the required Tools and Equipment orequivalency oftools used to return this article to service. PAZ Work Order log shows the following listed Work Orders could also be affected.

·- Work Order Date Description Part Number Serial II

----

**~-**
**~** I 29409 04/20/201 I Flight SpoilerPower Control Unit 65-44561-15 5307 Assembly

- 2 29408 04/20/20l l " 65-44561-15

# j- 4469

--

**--~** 3 29407 04/20/2011 " 65-44561-1) 4391

-

---- 4 28555 01/24/2011 

### .. 65-44561-15 

## i 8169 5 28554 01/24/2011 " 65-44561-15 3764

--- "--· 

# I GOVERNMENT 

# i EXHIBIT



## - /12

- - 6 28397 01/11/2011 " 65-4456I-15 10857

**~---------** - ----- 7 28396 01/11/2011 

### " 65-4456I-15 4421 8 28171 12/07/2010 

### " 65-4456I- I5

**408~** - 9 28170 12/07/2010 

### " 

## ,- 65-44561- I5 3374/\li

- ---- 10 28106 12/01/2010 

### " 65-44561-1

# s 10592

--- ----- 11 27884 11/20/2010 " 65-4456I- I5 7452 12 27885 11/20/2010 " 

### ,- 65-44561- I5 9717

------- ---- ------- -- 13 27886 11/11/2010 65-44561-15 10617 14 27868 I1/02/2010 " 65-4456I- I5 5432

------ 15 27867 I 1/02/2010 " 65-44561-15 10685

-------- - - - 16 27866 11/02/2010 " 65-4456I- I5 (,I()(, 1-:-::-
-- -·-------- ---

17 27517 09/29/2010 " 65-4456I- I5 4444

------- --- 18 27516 09129120I0 " 65-44561-14 4617

---- 65-4456I-15--

## r--,---- 19 27160 0811712010 '· 9717

- ·-- --- ----;--::-- - - -- - 20 27159 08/17/2010 

### " 65-445nI- I5 7452

------------·- 2I 27158 08/17/20I0 " 65-4456I-I5 10617

---- 22 27157 08/17/2010 

### " 65-4456I- I 5 1680

- _,

### __ ------------ --- ----- 23 27063 08/09/20I0 " 65-44561-15 : 7099 ! ---- 24 26477 06/04/20I0 " -65-44561-14 

## j 313611 

# '25 -- --------- ---·----- ----- 26476 06/03/2010 " 65-44561-15 . 24(15

----- 26 26I43 04/26/2010 " 65-44561- I 5 4635

- --------- 27 26027 04/15/2010 " 65-4456I-1 5 9847

--- ------- ---- 28 2§909 03/31/2010 " 65-44561-1 5 4759 

# '29 -- - --·----"'--
- 25908 03/31/2010 " 65-44561-9 4252%

-

**-----·~----** " 30 25838 03/25/20I0 65-4456l:I5 7485

--- " 3 I 25837 - 03/25/2010 . ---- -------- 65-4456-H-5 8356

----- ------ --



### 32 25792 03/19/2010 

# .. 65-44561- I 5 1-- _11__1_0 I 25791 03/19/2010 " **-~** 33 65-4451i 1-I 5 

### ()J 1J

- ---- ---- ---- ___.,_ -- -



## ~~ 25560 02/17/20I0 .,

**65-495~0-20** 0357 " --- -·- 35 25018 12/07/2009 65-44561-15 5800

- -·-- 36 25017 12/07/2009 65-44561- I5 5608

- -- 1---c---
---- 37 24956 11/25/2009 " 65-44561-15 

### 5632

---

**~-** 38 24955 11/25/2009 '• 65-44561-15 97084

------- 39 24857 11/13/2009 

### " 65-44561-15 4423

--------- 40 24856 II/13/2009 

### " 65-44561-1

# s 1389Jt\13

- 41 24855 11/13/2009 

# .. 65-44561-15 4567

-- ---- - ·---- i 

### 42 24854 11/13/2009 

### " 65-44561-15 7R56

43 24801 II/09/2009 

# .. 65-4456I-15 307711 

### ! 44 24555 10/06/2009 

### " -';--1-----
---- 65-44561- 14 1 3156/\ 

### !45 24340 09/01/2009 "



# :;~:

# ;:

**~**

# :;,},?),

- --- 

### 46 24075 07/30/2009 

### " 

# 47 23893 07/06/2009 

### " 65-44561-15 5953 " ------ -· 48 23773 06/16/2009 

### " 65-44561-15 8532

### J This action may be in violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations; this letter is to inli1rm you that this matter is under investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration. We wish to offer you an opportunity to present any evidence or statement you may care to make concerning this matter. The evidence or statements should be in surficicnt detail and contain all pertinent facts and any extenuating or mitigating, circumstances, which you believe, may have a bearing on this matter. Ifyou desire to do either ofthese, the actions should be accomplished within ten (I 0) days following receipt ofthis letter. Any discussion or written statement will be given consideration in the final conclusion ofour investigation. However, ifwe do not hear from you within the specified time, our report will be processed without the henetlt ofyour statement. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (954) 641-6I35. Sincerely, 

# c::C-/F Ai{nst Biamby Jr. )"Principal Maintenance Inspector

### SOUTH FLORIDA FLIGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFFICE 19 Ernst BiambyJr.- South FloridaMiami Flight Standards District Office 19 August 26, 2011 INSPECTORSTATEMENT On June20, 201 I, I investigated a complaintreceived viaemail with attachments, dated June 15, 2011, against Paz Aviation, Inc, from ST Aerospace Solutions (Europe). The complaint alleges that Paz Aviation, Inc. (PAZ) a 14 CFRpart 145 Repair Station certificate#XPZRI85L, with Radio Class,l,2,3 andLimited Accessory, Non-Destructive Ratings per.formed maintenance on a FlightSpoilerPowerControl UnitAssembly, (PCU), PIN 65-44561-15, SIN 8356, which failed during a test flight ofan SAS, 737- 400, as stated in the Complaint email . Listed below are the details ofthe work orders: I. Overhauled underWork Order#PAZ-25837, dated May 27,2010. 2. Tested underWork Order#PAZ-27429, dated September 27, 2010. 3. Rep-rureotinderWork Order#PAZ-29345, dated ApriLi7, 20i I. I interviewedPAZ Quality Control ManagerMr. Juan Zamora, Shop Manager Mr. Humberto Zamora andMechanic Mr.Antonio Yanez, who per.formed maintenance on the PCU, and they all confirmed that thePCU was tested priorto return to service. Following this interview PAZ employees could not explain why the PCU failed. I requested to see the equipment Mr. Yanezused to test the PCU. Mr. Yanez showed us a roll-around cart located onthe shop floor containing (2) fixtures/tools which he identified as the tools used to test the PCU. Thesetools are not equivalent to those listed in the Boeing Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) ATA 27-60-41, page I0I, 110-113, 121-123, 126. I thenrequested that PAZprovide the tools, test equipment and equivalent substitute as required bythe CMM. The ShopManager Mr. Humberto Zamora could not provide anydocuments to supporttooling equivalency. I expressedto PAZ that my investigation is to determine whatcausedthis PCU to fail, and ifthey wouldprovide factual informationitwould savea lotoftime investigating this matter. Afterhearing my comment Mr. Yanezrevealed he did not use the required tools ortest procedures after maintenance and he stated "the unit was not tested I00% due to the lack ofsome tools" and heprovided a statement. Mr. JuanZamora attempted to explainthat the fixture used fortesting this PCU was not in the shop becauseit was being modified, which is contrary to Mr. Yanez's account ofhow the unit was tested.



### ~ G()VERNMENT 

### j EXHIBIT 

## j _______.;(Myreview ofPAZ equivalency file #374, for the PCU, which was provided by Mr. Humberto Zamora, did not contain any equivalency orevidence ofthe required tools was ever obtained by PAZ. Iasked Mr. HumbertoZamora, how this article was returned to service withoutbeing properly tested? His response was that "it was an oversighton my part". None oftheemployees interviewed could explain how this article was tested. I collected copies ofWork Order# PAZ-25837, Work Order# PAZ-27429, and Work Order#PAZ-29345. I informed PAZ managementthatI would return the next day to copyWork Orders for previous PCU, maintainedby PAZ. On June21,2011, Ireturned to PAZ, this time in addition to the above mentioned managementpersonnelpresent was PAZ Accountable ManagerMr. Jay Allen and Consultant Mr. Jack Batista, a proposed future employee who will be handling quality control issues. Afterbriefing Mr. Allen ofmy findings Irequested scanned copies ofthe (48) affected Work Orders listed below.

. Work Order Date Description PartNumber I 29409 04/20/20II Flight SpoilerPower Control Unit 65-44561-15 Assembly 2 29408 04/20/2011 

### " " 3 29407 04/20/2011 " " 4 28555 01124/20II " " 5 28554 01/24/2011 " " 6 28397 01/1112011 " " 7 28396 01/1112011 " " 8 28171 12/07/2010 " " 9 28170 12/07/2010 "

. " 10 

## ·zsTo-o 12/0112010 

### --,, " II 27884 11120/2010 " " 12 27885 11120/2010 " " l3 27886 11/11/2010 14 27868 11102/2010 

### " " 15 27867 11/02/2010 

### " " 16 27866 11102/2010 

### " " 17 27517 09/29/2010 " 

### " 18 27516 09/29/2010 " " 19 27160 08/17/2010 " " 20 27159 08117/2010 " " 21 27158 08/17/2010 " 

### " 22 27157 08/17/2010 " " 23 27063 08/09/2010 " 

### " 24 26477 06/04/2010 

### " " 25 26476 06/03/2010 

### " " 26 26143 04/26/2010 

### " " 27 26027 04/15/2010 " 

### " 28 25909 03/3112010 

### " " 29 25908 03/31/2010 " "
2 --- Serial#

5307 4469 4391 8169 3764 10857 4421 4088 3374AB

10592 7452 9717 10617 5432 10685 6106 4444 4617 9717 7452 10617 1680 7099 3136A 2465 4635 9847 4759 42529630 25838 03/25/2010 " " 31 25837 03/25/2010 " " 32 25792 03119/2010 " " 33 25791 0311912010 " " 34 25560 02/17/2010 " " 35 25018 12/07/2009 " " 36 25017 12/07/2009 37 24956 11/25/2009 " " 38 24955 11/25/2009 " " 39 24857 11113/2009 " " 40 24856 11113/2009 " " 41 24855 11113/2009 " " 42 24854 11/13/2009 " " 43 24801 11109/2009 " " 44 24555 10/06/2009 " " 45 24340 09/01/2009 " "



## ~ 24075 0713012009 " "

- 47 23893 0710612009 " "



## ~ 23773 06/16/2009 " "

**~** While waiting for the digitally scanned copies ofthe above listed affected work orders to be completed, I returned to the shop floor for further evaluation ofthe tools I observed on June 20,2011. Accompaniedby PAZ management to the shop floor, I noticed a new ActuatorTest Stand and a Test Fixture which were not in the facility on the previous day June20,2011. Mr. Batistaproceeded to explain that these Test Stands werejustreturned from being modified. Myresponseto Mr. Batista's explanation, was that Mr. Yanez did 7485 8356 Ill01 6313 0357 5800 5608 5632 97084 4423 3893AB

4567 7856 3077A 3156A 6871 11474 5953 8532

_____ _notindicate to us that these **tools~xist"-danQ_w._q"_availabls:** when we requested to see.lhe___ _ equipment he used to test the PCU. At that time, Mr. Allen became adversarial and accused me ofthreatening Mr. Yanez. Ipromptly interrupted him and informed him that no one was threatened and that Mr. Yanez was interviewed in the presence ofPAZ Management and for him make an untrue accusation is unacceptable. PAZ management team Mr. Juan and Mr. Humberto Zamora reiterated to Mr. Allen that Mr. Yanez was not threatened. Mr. Allen attempted to substantiate that the newtools were previously owned and used by PAZ, by providing an invoice#437246, dated 06/20/2011, from Ledo Industrial Machine Shop for the amount of$5200.00, which shows that this test stand was newly manufactured. I then informedMr. Allen that there is no evidence that PAZ everowned these tools, since review ofthe equivalency file #374, does not contain any equivalency ofany ofthe required tools. I collected the scanned copies ofthe affected work orders and left the facility_ 

### On June 22, 

### 2011, 

### rreceived an email from Mr. JuanZamora to ST Aerospace Solution (Europe), requesting the subject PCU, be returned for functional test. 

### On June23,2011, 

## rsent a letterofInvestigation toPAZ.

3Iresponded to Mr. Zamora's email requesting that upon receiving PCUit be placed in quarantine. On July 8, 2011, I performed a follow-up inspection for capabilities ofrandomly selected articles listed on PAZ's CapabilityList for self-evaluation and equivalency of tools. The result ofthis inspectionrevealed that PAZ did not have the required tools, equivalency, self-evaluation and supporting documents. The following articles were randomly selected: Manufacturer Description 

### PIN l Boeing Main GearActuator 65-17830 2 Boeing Flap Control Valve Assembly 65-22958 3 Boeing Flap Transmission 65-26613 4 Boeing SpoilerPowerControl 65Cl6300 5 PrattWhitney Pressure Bleed Valve 658385 6 Boeing Reservoir Assembly 5936986 Further evaluation ofopen in-process Work Orders listed below, did not have all the required tools, equivalency, self-evaluation and supporting documents. Work Order Dated Manufacturer Description 

### PIN SIN 21234 05/06/3008 Honeywell TurbineAxial Vane 801240-4 071884-23 29990 06/22/20II Eaton 

### AIC Motor/Pump 861556 MX381529 I observed on the shop floor the new Actuator Stand previously seen on June 20, 20II, exceptnow it is tagged "Do not usc- Notcomplete" confirming that this unit was newly pnrchase-a.------· · I also observed a PCU Test Fixture withuncalibrated Dial Indicators being fabricated which also confirms PAZ did not have this tool for testing ofprevious PCU's that were returned to service. On July 11,2011,Ireceived PAZ response Jetter to my Letter ofInvestigation. On July 12,2011, I sent a Jetter informing PAZ, that effective July 8, 2011, prior to returning anyarticles to service, PAZ must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and comply with all the requirements of 14 CFR Part 145.215, by revising andresubmit an acceptable Capability List. On July 15, 2011, wereceived a telephone call from Mr. Batista, confmning receipt our letterdatedJuly 12,2011. He informed us that PAZ would comply withour letterand that it would take approxinnately 2 weeks to be in compliance. On July 22,2011, Iper.formed a follow-up inspection ofPAZ, for evaluation oftheir progress with the selfevaluation ofthe articles listed on theircapabilities list. PAZ was in theprocess ofreevaluating all articles. PAZ provided a folder#374, containing self


### 4evaluation documents for the PCU. We requested a test demonstration for the PCU, PAZ at this time could notperform this test due to lack oftooling (being modified). Paz informed us that they have not returned anyarticles to service. The CPU was returned toPAZ from STAerospace Solution (Europe) and we observed the shippingcontainerwas opened. We questioned why was it open? PAZ responded thatis how it was sent. OnAugust 1, 2011, I visited PAZ, to perform an evaluation ofdocuments for equivalency and selfevaluation for theFlight SpoilerPowerControl assembly P/N65- 44561-15. PAZ could not providethe supporting documents for tools equivalency evaluation. On August 25, 2011, PAZ, managementvisited the FSDO, and requested that we review the preliminaryequivalency documents for Flight SpoilerPowerControl Unit Assembly, PfN 65-4456I-15. We had no objection to the equivalency documents. PAZ requested that we come the facility on August 26, 20I I, at which time all documents, test equipment and testing ofthe PCU, wouldbe done. On August 25, 2011, I returned a telephone call to the Regional Specialist responsible for this case. We discussed ofthe case and the following was requested: I. Insert as an lOP PAZ's Repair Station Manual, policies and procedures, section, lorTools Equivalency. • Provide a signed InspectorStatement. • FurtherExplain Pictures lOP#6, 14,21,22. •---ffi&pector StatemenffromInspector-f:oouis Arrazola. • Revise and resubmit the Statement ofcase with all additional lOP's insert at the end. On August 26, 2011, we received a telephone message from Mr. Batista, cancelling our inspectiondue to PAZ, not beingready for our inspection. On August30,2011, this officeperformed a follow-up inspection oftool equivalency for Flight SpoilerPowerControl Unit Assy, PfN65-44561. We reviewed the equivalency documents in Book 374, and they were found acceptable. PAZ satisfactorily tested a PowerControl unit. As a result this office will accept PAZ submitted CapabilityList Revision I6, dated August 30, 20Il.

5In conclusion this investigation has revealed that PAZ did not have the Tools and Equipment and could not have properly tested this PCU, as required by the Boeing 

### CMM. 

## Ernst Ernst BiambyJr. Aviation Safety Inspector

6

### I Antonio Yanez

An Aviation, Inc.



### 8356 W/0 27429,29345 and 25837 Flight Spoiler test the unit I00% 

### for lack ofsome tooling.



### ~GOVERNMENT 

# i EXHIBIT 

# j 

# 365-44561, 65-49580

1. Testing A. Tools/Equipment 

### rp_HOEIN.G' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION
NOTE: Equivalent substitutes may be used.

Reference COM-5349

SPL-5346 SPL-5435 SPL-5459 SPL-6874 SPL-11814 STD-381 STD-382 ST[)0 1_2213_ __ STD-2604 STD-3761 STD-3913 STD-4766 STD-8746 STD-11757 STD-11848 STD-11849 B. Consumable Materials Descri tion X-Y Recorder/Plotter (Part #: 925E, Supplier· 60795) (Part # XY530T, Supplier: 72264) (Opt Part#. 7045B, Supplier: 28480) (Opt Part #: 7090A, Supplier 28480) Flow meter- 0-2 gpm (Part#: 410DME-3R, Supplier: 81205) Test Equipment- Flight Spo1ler Power Control Unit (Part#: F80224-79, Supplier: 81205) (Opt Part#: F80224-60, Supplier: 81205) Position Transducer (Part#: SS-101, Supplier: 00288) Gage - Pressure, Differential Port Assembly- Flight Spoiler Control Un1t (F80224-67 is included in F80224-79) (Part#: F80224-67, Supplier 81205) Gauge- Hydraulic Pressure, 0 to 6000 psi (41369 kPa) Gauge - Hydraulic Pressure, 3000 psi (20, 684 kPa) Indicator- Dial Gauge, Hydraulic Pressure, 0 to 50 psi (0 to 344 kPa) Ge11ge- Hydraulic Pressure, 0 to 3000 psi (0 to 20,684 kra) Test Stand- Hydraulic, 0 to 5500 ps1 (0 to 37921 kPa), psi increments Scale- Spring, 0 to 50 lbs (0 to 222 N) Graduated Beaker - 500CC Gage - Flow. 2000 cc/min Drip Tube- Hydraulic Flow Transducer- Hydraulic, 0 to 2 gpm NOTE: Equivalent substitutes may be used.

Reference Description D50122 Fluid- Hydraulic, Skydrol

BOEING PROPRIETARY- C<Jpyrigr,t·:f: Unpublished Work- Sfe title Specification BMS3-11, Type IV or Type V 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

### GOVERNMENT EXHII;liT

/L Page 101 Jul 01/201065-44561' 65-49580

CYLINDER ICRI ¥:1-DDEfNG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

RETURN (A) IHIDDEN)

TEST MANIFOLD F80224-6 --------1



# ~T TEST PORT EXTEND TEST PORT



# ~FIXTURE F80224--60

Flow Curve Test Figure 103 1975271 S0000356365_V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 110 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright·!:·Unpvblishe<l Work • See title page lor details6544561' 65-49580 

### rtJ--ooEfNC' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATOR HOLD ARM

**F80224--4~**

Positional Accuracy Test Figure 104 FIXTURE F80224----60

197527850000356366_ Vl 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 111 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copy11ghl:t: Unpublished Work- See title page lor details65-44561' 6549580

BAR 

### rp.__aoEfNG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATOR HOLD ARM
DIAL INDICATOR

**CLAMPASSY~** PROTRACTOR 

# ;:J
!ATTACHES TO PISTON) --rY"'-'-'-1'">'



# ~FIXTURE FB0224-60

Output Resolution Check Figure 105 1975284S0000355367 Vl 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 112 Jul 0112010 BOEING PROPRiETAAY - Copyright .1) Unpubljshed Work - Se<> title page lor dela1ls65-44561, 65-49580

POWER TENSION CYLINDER 

# l Y:'i--DDE,NG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

DIAL INDICATOR & ROD SCALE POWER CONTROL UNIT PROTRACTOR ASSY

F!XTURE F80224-60

1975296 S0000356368_V1 Hold-Down Check Valve Leakage, Dynam1c Seal/Load, Piston Stroke Test Figure 106 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 113 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copy,ght n UnpubliShed Work- Se€lttle page lor details65-44561' 65-49580 

## rp___aoE/ND' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL



# I RETRACT

**CHECK:~-<'"'-'** VALVE TEST PORT

THREE WIRE LEADS FROM

**PO~!TION** TRANSDUCER TO X-Y RECORDER

Check Valve, Flow Control Valve Test Figure 108 

# I

TEST FIXTURE TXt50796

1975315S0000356370_V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 121 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright·f Unpublished Worl<- See title page lor details65-44561' 65-49580 rtl--DOEING' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SETTING AND CHECKING FIXTURE, TX 150811**~ ~** 

Rod End Adjustment Figure 109 1975325S0000356371__V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 122 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyrighl (('\Unpublished WorK- See Iitie page lor details Jul 011201065-44561' 65-49580 9:1--B'OEfNG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATED SPOILER PANEl

LINEAR OUTPUT TRANSDUCER TX150804-J (MOUNTED ON ACTUATOR ON NEWER FIXTURES) 

# \

POWER CONTROL UNIT, 65-44561
LINEAR INPUT POSITION TRAtJS_O_UCER TX150&>4=2 ROTARY OUTPUT TRANSDUCER MOUNTED ON SUPPORT BRACKET (NOT ON NEWER FIXTURES)

Positional Accuracy/Output Resolution Check Figure 110 197533250000356372
__ V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 123 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY - Copyright([) Unpublished Work - See title page for details65-44561' 65-49580


### ~BOEING' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

/''----· l{7At>ftte-A1<1" CYCLING FIXTURE, TX150S20

1975392SD000356375_V1 Hold-Down Check Valve Leakage, Dynamic Seal/Load, Piston Stroke Test Figure 113 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 126 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY· Copyright.:t; UnpuOiisMed Work- See title page lor detaolsDAVID C. McDONALD(J897-J971) DAVID McOONALD



### William P. Vines, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel P 0 Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Re: Paz Aviation, Inc. McDONALD & 

### McDONALD Attorneys at Law

Established 1927 

# 0
1393 SW First Street Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33135-2321 TELEPHONE (305) 643-5313 FACSIMILE (305) 643--4990 dm_!JJill'mcdonaldattomeys com


### June 20,2014 DAVID M_ McOONALD"' PATRICK G. McDONALD • Board Certified in Aviation Law



### Via fax: 404 305-5223

and Email: William Vines@faa.gov

Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty Case No. 2011S0190272 Our File No. 12-138 DearMr. Vines: My apologies for not getting this to you sooner. Attached is the work order showing the equipment was in the shop during the site visit and photos ofit back in the shop. Please call me to discuss ifyou have any questions. Best regards, Sincerely, McDONALD & 

### McDONALD

DMM:mml Attachments as stated 

### Is/· DavidM McDonald David M. McDonald



### GOVJ:RNMENT EXHIBIT 

# r: **~lCTI\TD** 

# JUN 2
;.:-,\ r\ Ff , S!JLrJ;; ·'.'·

**;..·.-~** ,1::.."**~ ~**  ,_..A,£ **A\IIAII~, ,~._,**  437246 To LEDO INDUSTRIAL MACHINE SHOf 7600 W. 30TH CT HIALEAH GARDENS, FL 33018 Memo j LMP1'2 ""'C>iOC'

**O~te** 06!20111 Amount

5. 200 00/ . .--·-- INVOICE
43721iC so'fid._u
}- f\ J u0\ !\ 1 R l 1-\0 t I, I_Dt S **~** G :,J **SH~~L**

-l **~'II** (\liic-f ll'i( **~'il;[:!ll _\lc'~C_'_h>f~l**  **;~** ADDRESS

1 1 l..ull w7 u "- "\ **ADDR~S** !.-..: .:_) **s-.~ ~**  L •I-

' **~<..-** ,.,

'
----- **CITYST~"f'f\~C)\'1\\Xr'-:;**

\ L-,>;,c iS CITY, S1ATE, \f'
, __ -? :/C \'"t \ 1'1\ 'l·c,h \·I_ CUSTOMER ORDER NO \SOLD BY

I TERMS

I FO 8 OAT[ \l l, :_ **:>-~'** ,') I I **Dlm£P~;E0** IKIP,.ED DUCRIPTIOH

PRICE

I UHI1 '-hiiOUIH .

c v'<"S'\ '?\uc IQC' \) C **~** \',N_i.:.() ____

. ___ ---+--·· !'-::J 1 2.0(; ,9_Q_ f--.

. **\\~** u rr\ '" I \ '- G

,

...j .-·

i _ ---- -

li

:

i +- ------ I

.

!

! t-· -----

I

**~--** ·-- -------

. **-~-**

- --- --- i

··-- --- -- **--~ --~~~-** 

- l\

't-7 \"" -- r- ----- ·- -----·- ..
- --· --· 1-- ----- --- -:;o-- --·

.. **.o.~f~101!.>40nl**

s 2..0 0..0 d' '