U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

H, ,...AR'i C:: " I 

vs. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

Judge Sullivan 

The FAA hereby replies in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. 

Respondent's Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment discloses no 

genuine issues of material fact. As with its own Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent 

repeatedly asks for findings that contradict the documentary evidence and when it presents 

evidence at all relies almost exclusively on inadmissible non-expert opinions. Respondent cannot 

overcome either the documentary evidence against Respondent, or the FAA's expert testimony. 

The FAA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to each of the aircraft at issue in this case. 

I. Introduction 

Like its Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent's Response in Opposition to the 

FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment misunderstands the issues in this case, and what matters 

are appropriate for summary judgment. Respondent again asks the Judge to weigh evidence and 

again invokes matters of credibility. Respondent again relies almost exclusively on the personal 

knowledge and opinion of Jeffrey Becker, even though Becker has no personal recollection of 

I 
the condition of the aircraft and is not an expert on aviation maintenance. See, e.g., Respondent's 

Response at 2; FAA's Response at 1-2, 4, 14-15; see generally Respondent's Response. Worse, 

Respondent repeatedly asks the Judge to ignore the documentary evidence in this case in favor of 

its current opinions, unsupported by any evidence. 

Respondent additionally complains that the FAA used an expert declaration from 

Michael Christensen, which can hardly be surprising, since the FAA had identified him as an 

expert, and there was no Order from the Judge on the subject at the time dispositive motions 

were due. See Respondent's Response at 3-5. The Judge has subsequently granted Respondent's 

Motion to Exclude with regards to Christensen's identification as an initial expert witness. The 

FAA presumes that the Judge will disregard Christensen's declaration, except to the extent it 

serves as rebuttal to the Hancher report. 1 However, it should be noted that Becker (in addition to 

being unqualified to serve as an expert) was only ever identified as an expert in rebuttal to 

Christensen. Since Christensen has been excluded, the Judge found the FAA's motion to exclude 

him to be moot. Accordingly, since Becker's "expert" testimony is not available for hearing, 

Becker's "expert" opinions should be disregarded on summary judgment as well. Becker's 

opinions should not be considered - but even if they are, they cannot preclude sununary 

judgment because the documentary evidence conclusively establishes Respondent's violations. 

II. Relevance of Condition of Aircraft at Time of Initial Maintenance as Compared 

to Condition of Aircraft When Later Inspected 

Respondent makes several references to whether the FAA has demonstrated that the 

condition of the aircraft when inspected in May 2010 was identical to the condition of the aircraft 

1 Although Christensen was untimely identified as an initial expert witness because the undersigned was out of the 

office due to an illness and death in the family, Christensen was timely identified as a rebuttal expert witness. Since 

none of the grounds asserted in Respondent's Motion to Exclude, or in the Judge's Order granting that motion, relate 

to the FAA's timely disclosure of Christensen as a rebuttal expert, Christensen would still appear to be available as a 

rebuttal expert. 

2 
at the time Respondent returned them to service. See Respondent's Motion at 7-8 Respondent 

argues that the FAA's failure to so demonstrate is fatal to its case. 

Respondent's argument misunderstands the nature of the case. The FAA does not assert 

and has never asserted that the condition of the aircraft at the time they were returned to service 

is identical to their condition at the time they were inspected in May 201 0 (or April 201 0, for the 

right-hand side of N287SC). Some parts of the condition were the same at these two points in 

time. For example, the tubular bearing was missing at both points in time, the shimming washers 

were improperly configured at both points in time, and the hydraulic lines were mis-clamped at 

both points in time. But many of the problems identified by FAA inspectors, CCIA personnel, 

and Respondent's personnel were damage that was caused to the aircraft by the improper 

installations. See Respondent's Motion Exhibit 1 at 1 (Inspector Lipinski explaining that damage 

to the aircraft occurred as a result of the improper installation). The FAA does not, for example, 

assert that Respondent returned the aircraft to service with cracked components, gouged wings 

and wing doors, or chafing from a misplaced hydraulic clamp? Rather, Respondent improperly 

installed the main landing gear and flying doors such that this damage occurred to the aircraft 

over time after it began operating due to the undue stresses and scraping that resulted from the 

improper installation. See Exhibit JJ '1[11. As can be seen from the much more extensive list of 

damage on N899AA and N898AA (in operation for 8 or 9 months), as compared to N287SC (in 

operation for 2 months), the longer intervening time resulted in greater damage occurring. 

III. N287SC and Speculation On Improperly Performed Tire Changes 

In addressing the three aircraft, the Respondent runs discrepancy through discrepancy 

through the items identified in the FAA's Motion, and these will be addressed below. However, 

2 Approving the aircraft for return to service with such damage already present would be a violation as well, and a 

more serious one at that, but that does not appear to have been the situation here. 

3 
one particular issue bears emphasis, and that is the missing tubular bearing on N287SC and, 

more generally, Respondent's speculation about improperly performed tire changes. 

As discussed in detail in the FAA's Response, this speculation began at Becker's 

deposition, where he asserted that he talked to a guy, who had talked to another guy, who had 

said that he thought some other guys maybe sometimes changed tires incorrectly, leading Becker 

to speculate that this had occurred on an intervening tire change on N287SC, causing the loss of 

the missing tubular bearing. See FAA's Response at 6-7. However, as discussed in the FAA's 

Response, the hypothesized improper method of changing a tire wouldn't have anything to do 

with the missing tubular bearing. See FAA's Response at 7. This was because the process Becker 

was referencing- removing the actuation rod attachment bolt (where the actuation rod connects 

to the flying door)- related to the opposite end of the actuation rod. Id. 

In its Response, Respondent doubles down on the erroneous explanation provided by 

Becker, not only expounding for five pages on the subject of how the hypothetical improper tire 

change defeats the FAA's case, see Respondent's Response at 17-22, but also injecting the 

notion of a speculative improper tire change as an explanation for all manner of ills that befell 

the landing gear and doors. See, e.g., Respondent's Response at 9-14, 20. Some of these fall into 

the same mistake as Respondent did in trying to explain away the absence of the tubular bearing 

in N287SC - Respondent tries to write off problems with the gear fitting by citing to a 

hypothetical improper removal of the attachment bolt, even though the attachment bolt is on the 

other end of the actuation rod. See Respondent's Response at 9. 

However, Respondent also seeks to blame everything relating to a hinge, hinge cover, 

hinge pin, hinge loop, or damage to a structure near a hinge, on the possibility of a mechanic 

taking a "short cut" and improperly changing tires. These arguments are also fatally flawed. 

4 
First, Respondent errs in identifying (without any evidentiary support) this as a "short cut." As 

FAA's expert testimony shows, the suggested improper method of changing a tire was, in reality, 

a more difficult and time-consuming process than the proper method. See Exhibit JJ ~ 3 7. 

Second, Respondent presents no evidence at all (expert or otherwise) that the wide array of 

damage observed to these aircraft could be caused by improper tire changes, even if they were 

occurring. Third, Respondent has provided no explanation for why it was, somehow, only the 

aircraft that they had performed landing gear changes on that had problems with the hinge cover 

assemblies. The May 2010 inspections did not only cover these three aircraft, but also many of 

CCIA' s other B-727 aircraft that were not maintained by Respondent, and these sorts of 

problems were not found on those other aircraft, even ones that had been out of C check for 

longer than these aircraft. Exhibit JJ ~ 14. It would be an incredible coincidence if, as 

Respondent speculation would requires, CCIA mechanics were performing improper tire 

changes, but this somehow only resulted in damage to the aircraft that Respondent worked on. 

While this will be noted below, it bears emphasis here- there is no evidence whatsoever 

that any tire changes were ever performed improperly. Nor is there any reason to believe that any 

mechanic ever would take a "short cut" and improperly change a tire in a manner that creates 

even more work for the mechanic. Becker's game of "telephone"- one where Becker does not 

even understand what part of the aircraft is involved- could never be used by a reasonable finder 

of fact to conclude that an improper tire change actually did take place and, therefore, cannot 

create a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. 

IV. N899AA 

For N899AA, and the other two aircraft, Respondent seeks to address the particular 

mechanical defects in the aircraft. See Respondent's Motion at 8-1 0; see also Respondent's 

5 
Motion at 12-17. In general, Respondent addresses these defects with little, if any, reliance on 

evidence. Additionally, on several of these components, Respondent's argument consists of 

asserting that it did not actually work on the component, despite documentary evidence that 

Respondent did perform the maintenance in question. 

Improper Hardware Stackup: Both the forward and aft hinges on both the left and right 

doors of N899AA were written up as having improper hardware stackups. Exhibit N at 2-7. 

Respondent asserts that this write-up was based on Inspector Lipinski's statements, but 

Respondent presents no evidence in support of this assertion, and it is contradicted by Becker's 

deposition testimony. See Respondent's Response at 9; Exhibit~ at 112. There is no mention on 

the document that it was based on a reported discrepant condition. Compare Exhibit N at 2-7 

with Exhibit T at 1, 4 (write-up for report of discrepant condition); see generally Exhibit K 

(listing discrepancies on all three aircraft, including identifications of which ones were based on 

FAA inspector findings). And Becker testified at his deposition that these discrepancies were the 

result of the inspections done by Respondent's personnel when the aircraft came into 

Respondent's facility. See Exhibit PP at 112. Respondent further asserts that hardware was 

verified and that the hardware was reinstalled, meaning that there was never anything wrong 

with the hardware to begin with. Respondent's Motion at 8-9. However, that is not what the 

documents say. The document do not say that the "hardware" (the shimming washers) was 

reinstalled. It says that the doors were removed, the hardware was "verified" in accordance with 

a service bulletin, and then the doors were reinstalled. See Exhibit N at 2-7. This can most 

clearly be seen on the right-hand side, where there is a more detailed write-up of the corrective 

action - the mechanic explicitly states "reinstalled door." Exhibit N at 4, 6. Respondent's 

inspector concluded that there was an improper hardware stackup and directed that the hardware 

6 
be replace, and there is nothing in the mechanic's corrective action contradicting that inspector's 

finding. 

Excessive Play in Left-Hand Gear Fitting: Respondent does not dispute that the gear 

fitting was loose, or that it was responsible for the installation. See Respondent's Motion at 9. 

Respondent instead simply asserts, without evidentiary support, that this condition was the result 

of normal use of the landing gear and/or unspecified intervening maintenance actions. See id. 

The one example Respondent gives of an intervening maintenance action is an improperly 

performed tire change, which Respondent asserts could have resulted in the looseness observed. 

See id. However, this speculation is based on Becker's speculation about how the same sort of 

improper tire change could have resulted in the missing tubular bearing on N287SC, because the 

tubular bearing is part of this gear fitting. See Exhibit C at 404. However, as discussed in detail 

in the FAA's Response, the improper tire change methodology suggested by Becker involved 

removal of the actuation rod attachment bolt (where the actuation rod attaches to the flying 

door), while the tubular bearing and the gear fitting are at the other end of the actuation rod, 

where it attaches to the gear. See FAA's Response at 5-8. Improperly changing the tire in that 

manner would have nothing to do with the gear fitting. Respondent presents no evidence, only 

speculation, and the one specific piece of speculation it provides has nothing to do with the 

fitting at issue here. Respondent's unsupported speculation cannot create a genuine issue of 

material fact to preclude summary judgment. Respondent improperly installed this gear fitting. 

Excessive Play in Right-Hand Gear Fitting: Respondent does not dispute that the gear 

fitting was improperly shimmed. See Respondent's Motion at 9. Rather, Respondent asserts that 

it was another vendor who was responsible for this. In support of this assertion, Respondent cites 

only to a passage of Becker's deposition relating to a hydraulic line, where Becker asserts that 

7 
because the corrective action taken by AMES cites to the overhaul manual, this means that 

AMES could not have done the original work. Respondent's Motion at 9. However, Becker 

specifically discussed these fittings at his deposition, and made no assertion that Respondent had 

not worked on them. See Exhibit KK. at 115-16. Additionally, there is no indication that doing 

this work would require using the overhaul manual. Although the mechanics in May 2010 

referenced the overhaul manual, AMM 32-11-00, which was signed off on by Respondent, 

includes steps for installing and shimming the fitting as part of the reinstallation of the flying 

door. See Exhibit C at 422 'If AL(1 0)(11 ). Indeed, in the immediately preceding discussion of the 

loose gimbal fitting on the left-hand flying door, Respondent explicitly asserts that it used 

exactly those parts of the manual in installing the gear fittings - "AMES records show, without 

dispute, that when it changed the main landing gear it accomplished AMM steps 5.AL (10) and 

(11), covering this hardware and fitting." Respondent's Motion at 9. Respondent's only defense 

the charge that it improperly shimmed this gear fitting is to say that it did not actually do the 

shimming, but this contradicts Respondent's own assertions elsewhere, and does not create a 

genuine dispute. Respondent improperly installed this gear fitting. 

Cracked Hinge Loop: A hinge loop on right forward hinge cover was cracked, requiring 

replacement of the hinge. Exhibit N at 15-16. Respondent does not dispute that the crack was 

present, but argues that it is not relevant because the maintenance it performed did not involve 

inserting pins in the hinge access doors. Respondent's Response at 10. Respondent's argument is 

without foundation because Respondent was responsible for properly securing the hinge 

assembly. Respondent's Response presents no expert testimony or documentation to support its 

assertion that it was not responsible for the complete hinge assembly. Respondent asserts in a 

footnote that the process of removing the flying doors only involves removing three screws, but 

8 
presents no evidence of this - the manual section on removing and replacing the landing gear 

says nothing about how to go about opening and later securing the hinge covers.3 See Exhibit C 

at 402 '1[3.F(l), 423 '1[5.AL(l8). But, while the manual does not specify how to go about 

installing and securing the hinge covers, it does specifically require that they be secured, and 

Respondent performed and signed off on that maintenance. Exhibit C at 423 '1[5.AL(l8). 

Although Respondent does not address the CCIA write-ups at all in its response, it is pertinent 

here that there were two write-ups by CCIA for migrating and improperly installed hinge pins on 

this aircraft, see Exhibit K at 10 '1['1[1-2, that CCIA sent Respondent a discrepancy notice about 

the improperly installed hinge assembly, and that Respondent replied that "A training and 

procedural error occurred during the hinge pin installation. The technician and inspector were 

unaware that Boeing has a [standard process] for ensuring the hinge pins are secure." Exhibit 0 

at I. Respondent interviewed its mechanic about the pins, and required the mechanic to 

accomplish additional training on the subject. Exhibit 0. Respondent concluded that its training 

and procedural error were the "root cause" of the migrating hinge pins. Exhibit P at 1. 

Respondent's current argument (unsupported by any evidence) that it did nothing relating to 

hinge pins at all is directly contradictory to the documentary evidence in this case, including 

Respondent's own contemporaneous statements. Respondent performed and documented 

maintenance that included ensuring that the hinge covers were properly secured, but failed to do 

so properly. 

Damaged Angle: The aft angle on the fairing on the right-hand side was damaged at the 

flying door cutout. Exhibit N at 12. Respondent's explanation of this is unhelpful to its case. 

First, Respondent asserts that the damage angle was caused by the cracked hinge loop. See 

3 As discussed iu the FAA's Response, the B727 manual system often does not provide details iu a particular manual 

section, requiring the mechanic to have knowledge from other sources, such as more specific manual provisions. See 

FAA's Response at 16-18. 

9 
Respondent's Motion at 10. While Respondent provides no evidentiary support for this notion 

(the fairing was damaged due to rubbing, see Exhibit K at 10 'lf3), it only demonstrates their 

responsibility since, as discussed immediately above, Respondent was responsible for the 

cracked hinge loop. Second, Respondent asserts that the aft angle was not damaged when it 

finished working on the landing gear in July 2009. See Respondent's Motion at 10. This may 

well be true, but the FAA did not charge Respondent with installing a damaged angle. Rather, as 

discussed above, the damage observed to the aircraft was caused over time by the improper 

installation performed by Respondent. 

Replacement of Worn Hinge Cover and Hinge Cover Bracket: Respondent asserts, 

without evidentiary citation, that these components were subject only to normal wear and tear. 

Respondent's Response at 10. The FAA has provided an expert declaration that the wear on 

these components, taken together with other damage to the aircraft, demonstrates that the 

installation was improperly performed. Exhibit JJ 'lf'lf18, 23-25, 27. Respondent's speculation in 

its brief that the components were only subject to normal wear and tear cannot create a genuine 

issue of material fact. 

V. N898AA 

As with N899AA, Respondent seeks to address particular mechanical defects with 

N899AA. See Respondent's Motion at 12-16. As to each of these defects, Respondent 

acknowledges the defect, but asserts that it was not responsible for the defect, or asserts that the 

defect was "minor" and therefore only "wear and tear." 

Right-Hand Cracked Forward Hinge: The forward hinge on the right-hand flying door 

was cracked and had to be replaced. Exhibit T at 2. In addressing this, Respondent again asserts 

that it did nothing relating to hinge pins and again seeks to blame the damage on some 

10 
hypothetical intervening tire change that was improperly performed. See Respondent's Response 

at 12. As previously discussed, the maintenance performed by Respondent did require securing 

the hinge covers. Additionally, there is no indication that the cracked forward hinge here was 

related to a pin. Further, as discussed in detail above, there is no reason to believe that any 

improper tire change took place to damage the hinge cover - and even if there was, Respondent 

has presented no evidence that the cracks observed here are the sort of damage that an improper 

tire change might cause. 

Right-Hand Loose Aft Hinge: The after hinge on the right-hand flying door had to be 

replaced because it was loose. Exhibit T at 2. Respondent does not address this discrepancy at 

all, except to re-assert that nothing wrong with a hinge cover can be its responsibility. See 

----

Respondent's Motion at 12. As noted immediately above, this contention is without foundation. 

Right-Hand Bushings Worn Beyond Limits: Respondent does not dispute that there were 

bushings worn beyond limits in the hinges of the right-hand flying door. See Respondent's 

Motion at 12. Rather, Respondent argues that it had no obligation to determine, when installing 

the bushings on the aircraft, whether those bushings were within limits. See Respondent's 

Resposne at 12. Respondent's assertions in this regard miss the mark. Respondent asserts that it 

can simply re-install components that were worn beyond limits because the manual section it was 

referencing did not specifically say that you couldn't install improper components. Id. This 

contention is laughable -just because a manual section says to remove and reinstall a component 

does not mean that it is suddenly acceptable to reinstall and then approve for return to service an 

unairworthy component. Not only should it be a fairly common sense notion that a mechanic 

cannot sign an airworthiness release for an aircraft system that isn't airworthy, but a mechanic 

performing maintenance is required to restore the aircraft to its original or properly altered 

11 
condition, an obligation that by definition that mechanic has failed to meet if he installs an 

unairworthy component on the aircraft. 14 C.P.R. § 43.13(b). Respondent's contention is also 

only supported by the testimony of Becker who, as discussed elsewhere, has no qualification to 

testify as an expert on aviation maintenance. Additionally, Respondent does not address at all 

whether the excessively worn components are the result of its improper installation. 

Left-Hand Cracked Forward Hinge/Left-Hand Aft Hinge Migrating Hinge Pin/Left-Hand 

Bushings Worn Beyond Limits: Respondent makes no distinction between the cracked forward 

hinge on the left-hand side of the aircraft, instead citing back to its discussion of the right-hand 

problems. See Respondent's Response at 13-14. The facts are not identical, because here the aft 

hinge had a migrating pin, rather than being loose. But it remains the case that Respondent was 

responsible for securing these hinge cover assemblies, including the pins, and it remains the case 

that there is no reason to believe that any improper tire changes were performed. 

Crack In Right-Hand Flying Door: Respondent does not dispute that there was a crack in 

the flying door, but simply relies on Becker's belief that, because the crack could be repaired by 

blending, it was only wear and tear. See Respondent's Response at 13. However, as discussed in 

detail elsewhere, Becker is not qualified to be an expert, and his personal opinion is irrelevant. 

See FAA's Response at 1-2. More significantly, Becker's testimony and Respondent's 

explanation ignore the part of Respondent's maintenance document where it mentions that this 

was a "gouge extending into a crack." Exhibit T at 11. This crack was not caused by wear and 

tear, but is specific damage damage to the aircraft. See Exhibit JJ '1['1[29-30. 

Gouge in Su~face of Right Wing: Respondent again does not dispute that the gouge was 

present, but again relies solely on Becker's testimony. See Respondent's Response at 13. Not 

only is Becker's "expert" testimony of no value, regardless, but the portion of Becker's 

12 
deposition cited by Respondent is a general passage where Becker ruminates: "You know, when 

I reviewed the specific nonroutines, again, alii see is wear and tear, blend and treat. You know, 

fixing nicks. Replacing a worn seal. Again, to me, these are normal operational type wear and 

tear items." Exhibit PP at 86. Respondent appears to be taking this statement to mean that, by 

definition, anything that is repaired with a "blend and treat" is only wear and tear. However, 

Becker does not appear to be making such a forceful (and manifestly incorrect) assertion. Nor is 

it clear how such an assertion- which classifies damage as "wear and tear" without any regard to 

the cause of the damage, when the question at issue is what caused the damage - could be taken 

seriously. As noted below, Respondent continues to assert that damage was only "wear and tear" 

even when Respondent also notes a specific problem caused by an improper installation that 

caused the damage. And when Becker did discuss this particular gouge, he said nothing about it 

being only wear and tear. Exhibit PP at 139. Indeed, as a practical matter, it is unclear how a 

gouge could be normal wear and tear. It is simply not normal wear and tear for a flying door 

assembly to cause gouges in the surface of the wing. Exhibit JJ ~ 30. 

Chafing Damage to Left Fairing: As above, Respondent relies exclusively on a general 

comment in Becker's deposition, rather than any particular comment Becker made about this 

particular damage, for the notion that anything repaired with a blend and treat is only "wear and 

tear." See Respondent's Response at 13. Again, Becker is not qualified to offer the opinion that 

Respondent proffers and, again, Becker's generalized comments cannot bear the weight 

Respondent seeks to put on them. Respondent's generalizations cannot overcome the FAA's 

expert testimony that this damage, taken in concert with other damage, demonstrates that the 

flying door was not properly installed. See Exhibit JJ ~~ 31, 33. 

13 
Gouges in the Lefi-Hand Flying Door near the attach bracket: Respondent does not 

dispute that there were three gouges in the left-hand flying door. See Respondent's Motion at 14. 

Nor does Respondent assert that they were only wear and tear. See id. Rather, Respondent asserts 

- for the first time and without any evidentiary support of any sort - that these gouges were 

cause by debris strikes. Respondent's unsupported speculation cannot overcome the FAA's 

expert testimony that these gouges, taken in concert with the other damage, demonstrate that the 

flying door was not properly installed. See Exhibit JJ ~~ 31, 33. 

Gouges in the Left-Hand Flying Door near the stop bracket: As above, Respondent relies 

exclusively on a general comment in Becker's deposition, rather than any particular comment 

Becker made about this particular damage. See Respondent's Response at 13. Again, Becker is 

not qualified to offer the opinion that Respondent proffers and, again, Becker's generalized 

comments cannot bear the weight Respondent seeks to put on them. Respondent's 

generalizations cannot overcome the FAA's expert testimony that these gouges, taken in concert 

with other damage, demonstrate that the flying door was not properly installed. See Exhibit JJ 

~~31, 33. 

Migrating Pin and Damaged Hinge Lobe on Left-Hand Afi Hinge Cover: Here 

Respondent simply repeats its prior claims that it had nothing to do with the hinge covers, and its 

unfounded speculation that this damage might have been cause by improper tire changes. See 

Respondent's Response at 14-15. Again, Respondent did sign off as performing the reinstallation 

and securing of the hinge covers. Again, Respondent has presented no reason to believe that any 

improper tire changes took place. Again, Respondent has presented no testimony that this 

damage would be the sort of damage caused if there had been some other intervening improper 

maintenance. This is particularly significant here where the damage was not damage to the cover 

14 
itself, but a cracked hinge lobe associated with a migrating pin. Respondent's unsupported 

speculation cannot create a genuine issue of material fact when compared to either the 

maintenance sign-offs it executed or the FAA's expert testimony. 

Cracked Bushing in Left-Hand Flying Door Fitting: Respondent does not dispute that this 

bushing was cracked, but instead re-iterates its prior assertions that it is permitted to simply 

reinstall improper components because the manual section it was using doesn't tell it not to. See 

Respondent's Response at 15. That contention remains laughable. Here, however, it seems 

unlikely that Respondent would have actually installed a bushing that was already cracked. 

Rather, the cracking of the bushing was caused by undue stresses placed on the hinge by the 

improper installation of the flying door and the crack in this bushing, taken together with the 

other damage to the flying door and associated structures, demonstrates that the door was not 

properly installed. ExhibitJJ,-r,-r 11, 31, 33. 

Cracked Internal Stiffener on Left-Hand Flap Track Fairing: Respondent does not 

dispute that this damage was present, but asserts that the flap track fairing is not removed during 

gear changes. Respondent's Response at 15. Respondent again cites Becker as its authority for 

this. Respondent's Response at 15. Becker and Respondent are - again - mistaken. The flap 

track fairing is removed (and later reinstalled) during a gear change. Exhibit C at 402 ,-r 3. G 

("Remove the inboard flap track fairing."), 422 ,-r 5.AK ("Install flap track fairing."). This serves 

as yet another example of Respondent's repeated and erroneous assertions that the AMM section 

it was using did not call for it to perform maintenance on particular components. However, in 

this case (as with the cracked bearing), the cracks in the stiffener are pertinent because they are 

damage caused by the undue stress placed on the flying door and associated structures by 

Respondent's failure to properly rig the flying doors. See Exhibit JJ ,-r,-r 11, 31, 33. 

15 
Cracked Forward Attach Plate on Left-Hand Flying Door: The totality of Respondent's 

response on this subject is to rely on Becker saying that the Respondent would not have done 

anything with this component during the installation of the landing gear. See Respondent's 

Response at 15. Again, the damage to this component, when taken together with all of the other 

damage to the flying door and associated components, demonstrates that the landing gear and 

flying door had not been properly installed. Exhibit JJ "!1"!111, 31, 33. Respondent does not even 

attempt to address this. 

Cracked Attach Plate on Right-Hand Flying Door: The totality of Respondent's response 

on this subject is to rely on Becker saying that the Respondent would not have done anything 

with this component during the installation of the landing gear. See Respondent's Response at 

15. Again, the damage to this component, when taken together with all of the other damage to 

the flying door and associated components, demonstrates that the landing gear and flying door 

had not been properly installed. Exhibit JJ "!1"!111, 31, 33. Respondent does not even attempt to 

address this. 

Replacement of Left-Hand Flying Door: Regarding the replacement of the left-hand 

flying door, Respondent simply notes that the customer had it replace the door. See Respondent's 

Response at 16. Respondent asserts, without foundation, that "it could have re-rigged the door," 

presumably attempting to imply that there was really nothing wrong with the door. See id. 

However, neither the documentation concerning the replacement of the door nor Becker's 

deposition testimony support this implication. See Exhibit T at 36; Exhibit PP at 13 7 Most 

importantly, the discrepancy written up by Respondent's inspector explicitly stated that the door 

could not be adjusted- "LIH MLG FLYING DOOR REQUIRES REPLACEMENT, CANNOT 

BE ADJUSTED INTO FAIR." Exhibit Tat 36 (capitalization in original). Further, the chain of 

16 
events postulated now by Respondent is irrational. If the customer was going to have Respondent 

replace flying doors rather than have Respondent do a simple re-adjustment, why would the 

customer have had Respondent go to all of the trouble of doing the repairs on this flying door (or 

any of the flying doors)? Both flying doors were removed from all of these aircraft- yet only 

two were replaced4 Rather, the evidence indicates that there actually was something wrong with 

the door- that the door had been bent by the stress placed on it by being repeatedly opened and 

closed when out of rig. Exhibit JJ '1!'1!. 11, 31, 33. 

VI. N287SC (Except for the Previously Discussed Missing Tubular Bearing) 

As with the other two aircraft, Respondent seeks to address particular mechanical defects 

with N287SC. See Respondent's Motion at 16-17. As to each of these defects, Respondent 

acknowledges the defect, but asserts that it was not responsible for the defect, or asserts that the 

defect was only "wear and tear." 

Replacement of Worn Bushings: Respondent correctly notes that the initial write-up of 

this discrepancy was (in part) "suspect worn bushings." Respondent's Response at 16. 

Respondent also correctly notes that the bushings were replaced. Id. However, Respondent's 

conclusion from this- that we have no substantial evidence on the condition of the bushings - is 

unsupportable. The bushings, having been written up for a suspected worn condition requiring 

replacement, were, in fact, replaced. Exhibit DD at 1-2. That the mechanic, consulting the 

overhaul manual (OHM), did replace the bushings in accordance with (IA W) that manual, is 

substantial evidence that the suspicion was correct and that the bushings were excessively worn 

and needed to be replaced. It may be conceivable that the mechanic consulted the overhaul 

manual, determined that the suspicion that the bushings were excessively worn was incorrect, 

replaced the bushings anyway, then documented that the replacement had been performed in 

4 The other door that was replaced was the right-hand door on N287SC. 

17 
accordance with the overhaul manual even though the overhaul manual did not call for their 

replacement. However, even on summary judgment, this case does not turn on questions of 

whether there is a scintilla of a possibility that the natural conclusion is incorrect. Respondent 

also appears to be repeating here its argument that it is permitted to re-install unairworthy 

components on an aircraft when the instructions call for a component to be removed and 

reinstalled. Respondent's Response at 16. This argument remains in error. And Respondent again 

declines to address whether the excessively worn condition was a result of an improper 

installation. 

Improperly Installed Hinge Pins: Respondent acknowledges that the hinge pins on the 

left-hand door were improperly installed. Respondent's Motion at 17. Respondent again asserts 

that nothing in the installation procedures require it to secure hinge pins and, therefore, it is not 

responsible for these. Id. Again, the installation does require that the hinge covers be secured. 

Exhibit Cat 423 ~ 5.AL(l8); see also Exhibits 0, P. 

Damage to Left-Hand Flap Track Fairing: Respondent's response on this damage 

emphasizes the unsupported and speculative nature of their responses generally, and specifically 

Respondent's blanket reliance on pages 86-87 of Becker's deposition for the notion that every 

single piece of damage that can be repaired with a blend and treat is "normal wear and tear." 

Respondent first asserts that this damage was probably caused by a protruding or loose hinge pin. 

See Respondent's Response at 17. Then, because the damage was corrected by a blend and treat, 

Respondent insists (as it has for every other blend and treat) that this damage was "normal wear 

and tear." See id. However, these two assertions contradict each other. If the damage was caused 

by an improperly secured hinge pin, then it was not normal wear and tear - it was particular 

damage caused by a particular mechanical defect caused by an improper installation. This only 

18 
illustrates the flimsy nature of Respondent's effort to cast Becker's words at deposition as some 

sort of definitional statement that in every instance the fact that damage was addressed by 

blending and treating means that the damage was "wear and tear." 

VII. Respondent's Pre-Litigation Statements Concerning Its Work 

The attachments to the FAA's Motion included communications between the FAA, 

CCIA, and Respondent. These includes the CCIA discrepancy reports to Respondent, 

Respondent's corrective actions, the FAA's letter of investigation to CCIA and CCIA's response, 

and the FAA's letter of investigation to Respondent and Respondent's response. Exhibits H, 0, 

P, U, V, EE, FF, GG, HH. The FAA concluded, based on these documents, that Respondent had 

admitted to improperly performing the installations. See FAA Motion at 16, 18, 22. Most 

prominently, CCIA had concluded in three internal investigations, and in its letter of response to 

the FAA, that Respondent had done the installations improperly - and Respondent, when 

responding to its own letter of response, had simply referred the FAA to CCIA's letter of 

response and to those three internal investigations. Of particular relevance to Respondent's 

arguments in its Response, when CCIA informed Respondent that Respondent had improperly 

secured hinge pins, Respondent agreed that it had erred in failing to ensure that they were 

proper! y secured. 

Respondent now launches a six-page assault on the FAA's conclusions. However, this 

tirade consists almost entirely of arguments that effectively ask the Court to ignore what 

Respondent actually said at the time - either by ignoring what Respondent said then in favor of 

Respondent's position during litigation, or by simply inaccurately representing the contents of 

documents. This continues a troubling pattern that began with Respondent's Motion, where it 

inaccurately represented that "[f]rom the outset" it responded to the FAA's Letter of 

19 
Investigation by asserting that "whatever discrepancies were identified ... were the product of 

'normal wear and tear' and not evidence of the failure to properly rig the flying doors." -- ------_<, 

Respondent's Motion at 2. Respondent makes three misleading, or false, assertions. 

The first concerns the discrepancy notice and corrective actions on N899AA, contained 

in Exhibit 0 and P. In these documents, CCIA asserts that Respondent improperly installed a 

hinge assembly on N899AA, resulting in the migration of hinge pins and damage to the aircraft. 

Exhibits 0, P. Respondent's internal analysis of this discrepancy begins by stating that "A 

training and procedural error occurred during the hinge pin installation." Exhibit 0 at 1, 3. This 

error was that Respondent's personnel were unaware of the Boeing standard process for securing 

the hinge pins. Exhibit 0 at 1. When Respondent reported to CCIA about the issue, Respondent 

------ --

identified this error as the "root cause" of the problems. Exhibit P at 1. In its Response, 

Respondent completely everything it said in those documents, instead asserting its current 

position that it had nothing to do with the hinge pin installation. Respondent's Motion at 23. This 

assertion is irrelevant to the question of whether Respondent admitted responsibility at the time. 

Respondent expressly admitted that it had been responsible for securing the hinge pins as part of 

the installation, and that it had erred in the course of that installation. 

The second concerns Respondent's reliance on the statements of Becker at his deposition. 

See Respondent's Response at 25. At his deposition, Becker asserted that he never thought the 

conclusions of CCIA's investigations or response letter were accurate, that he was simply 

advising Inspector Lipinski to look at the corrective actions listed in that letter because he had 

nothing new to add, and was trying to "put a face" to the Inspector that CCIA and Respondent 

were working together. These comments are unsurprising, since for purposes of this litigation 

Respondent now rejects CCIA's conclusions. Again, however, Respondent's position now is at 

20 
odds with what it said then. Respondent's letter did not only refer Inspector Lipinski to the 

corrective actions referenced in the October 25, 2010 letter- it informed Inspector Lipinski that 

"The details of the investigation and results have been sent to you by CCIA in a letter." Exhibit 

HH at 1. Further, although Becker asserted at his deposition that he referred the Inspector to the 

CCIA letter so as to avoid simply repeating the corrective actions, the letter then goes on to spell 

out the corrective actions. ld. at 1-2. Additionally, the letter did "correct" the Inspector on 

several point, including a denial of responsibility for one particular item (the anti-skid) conduit, 

but did not deny anything else. ld. Again, Respondent asks the Court to pay attention to its 

position now, when the question was what it admitted at the time. 

The third concerns the extent of Respondent's corrective action. Respondent asserts that 

all of the corrective action it took with regards to N287SC and N898AA was in relation to its 

failure to properly perform A checks on these aircraft, during which Respondent should have, but 

did not, detect the problems caused by its initial installations. See Respondent's Response at 23-

24, 27. Respondent's assertion that the corrective actions it documented were lip1ited to A checks 

is in error. First, the corrective actions listed on the second pages of Exhibits V and EE include 

drafting new task cards with more specific instructions on how to perform a removal and 

installation of the main landing gear. Exhibit V at 2, Exhibit EE at 2; see Exhibit HH at 2 (noting 

the development of these task cards, and how they will "prevent a reoccurrence of the issues 

encountered."). Second, the corrective actions listed on the second pages of Exhibit V and EE 

include numerous references to training module MRO-M2-202 (727 Wing Door Training 

Module). Exhibit Vat 2, Exhibit EE at 2. This training module summarized the recent problems 

discovered by the FAA and noted that it was suspected that these flying doors had been 

improperly rigged, discussed removal and installation of the flying doors, discussed how to rig 

21 
the flying doors, and discussed how to secure hinge pins. Exhibit QQ at 2 ("This training module 

will highlight the proper maintenance procedures for the removal and installation of the B-727 

Right or Left MLG Wing Door."), 9-23. Although a better understanding of these topics would 

presumably help a technician conduct an A check, there is no actual mention of A checks in the 

training module, nor any reference to recent incidents where deficient A checks were performed. 

See Exhibit QQ. Respondent's assertions that its corrective actions were limited to A checks is 

simply erroneous. 

In sum, Respondent's arguments that it did not admit the improper installations are 

misleading at best, and appear to be founded on the hope that the Court will ignore what 

Respondent actually said at the time and instead look only at Respondent's current litigation 

position. Respondent is free to argue now that it did not really meant what it said at the time, but 

the positions Respondent has taken for purpose of litigation do not somehow wipe out 

Respondent's original statements, including those parts of those statements where Respondent 

(1) directly acknowledges its improper installation on N899AA in response to a discrepancy 

notice from CCIA and (2) refers the FAA to the investigatory "details and results" recounted in 

CCIA' s letter of response, where the results of those investigations was an explicit conclusion 

that Respondent had performed improper installations on all three aircraft. Respondent cannot 

generate a genuine issue of material fact as to its prior admissions simply by ignoring or 

disagreeing with them in a brief. 

VIII. The Hancher Report 

In its Response, Respondent criticizes the FAA for not addressing the expert report of 

Daniel Hancher in its Motion for Summary Judgment. See Respondent's Motion at 3, 28. The 

FAA did not address the Hancher report because it is so flawed as to be meaningless. A more 

22 
interesting question is why Respondent's own Motion for Summary Judgment did not attach or 

address the Hancher report. See generally Respondent's Motion. Or why Respondent, although 

now attaching the Hancher report to its Response, barely mentions it. See generally 

Respondents' Response. Indeed, while Respondent spends about 17 pages discussing the 

condition of the aircraft, the corrective actions taken to address the damage to the aircraft, and 

the significance (or lack thereof) of those things, this discussion does not cite to Hancher's report 

a single time. See Respondent's Response at 6-22. Rather, it cites Hancher only in its 

introduction and its conclusion - once for the general notion that everything was wear and tear, 

see Respondent's Motion at 3, and once for the general notion that the report supports AMES's 

position that "many discrepancies do not relate to the actions of AMES," see Respondent's 

Response at 28. 

As to the second citation, the Hancher report contains nothing whatsoever to support 

Respondent's contention that discrepancies do not relate to Respondent's actions. Compare 

Respondent's Response at 28 with Respondent's Response Exhibit 2. Respondent's first citation 

to the Hancher report is to only one sentence of one paragraph (-,r 5), and so that will be discussed 

below.5 

In paragraph 5, the only paragraph of the report on which Respondent relies, Hancher 

offers two generalizations and one specific opinion. His first generalization is that out of the 

corrective actions in Respondent's documents, "the issues requiring attention were of a 'wear 

and tear' variety." Respondent's Response Exhibit 2 -,r 5. Unfortunately, Hancher fails to inform 

us exactly what corrective actions he is taking into account. !d. This, combined with the blanket 

nature of Hancher's statement, is problematic for Respondent because there undisputedly were 

5 Because Respondent does not assert any relevance to the remainder of the Hancher report, and the FAA concurs 

that it has no relevance, it will not be addressed in detail here. 

23 
required corrective actions that addressed conditions that were not wear and tear. For example, in 

'1[5 Hancher references the misrouting of an anti-skid conduit. See id. There is no dispute that the 

anti-skid conduit on the right side ofN287SC (which was the only mis-routed anti-skid conduit 

on these three aircraft) was mis-routed. There is no suggestion that it somehow jumped from one 

side of the landing gear to another due to wear and tear. While the mis-routing of the anti-skid 

conduit may not have been Respondent's responsibility, reparing that was documented in the 

corrective actions taken by Respondent. Similarly, there were undisputedly two improperly 

routed and clamped hydraulic lines between the three aircraft. There is no dispute between the 

parties that these were improperly installed (Respondent asserts it is not responsible for the 

improper installation). There does not appear to be any dispute that there were problems with the 

installation of the hinge cover assemblies, especially the securing of the hinge pins (again, 

Respondent disputes whether it was responsible for that). Did Hancher not consider these 

corrective actions? If he did consider them, then his conclusion that everything is wear and tear is 

undisputedly incorrect.6 If Hancher did not consider them, why did he not consider them? Did 

Respondent provide instructions to Hancher that he should exclude certain of the corrective 

actions? Was Hancher not provided with complete maintenance document packages? Either way, 

it means that Hancher's blanket statement that everything he reviewed was "wear and tear" is 

meaningless, because we have no idea what he reviewed, and we know he didn't consider 

everything. Or, as noted above, he did consider all corrective actions when asserting that all of 

the problems were wear and tear, and his statement is undisputedly wrong. Either way, his 

opinion is without value and can be disregarded. 

6 The missing tubular bearing on N287SC was also indisputably not the result of wear and tear. However, 

replacement of the missing tubular bearing was not a corrective action documented by ArvfES in the re-work 

packages because it had been done by CCIA after the vibration incident on Aprill6, 2010. 

24 
The one specific Hancher does give in 'j[ 5 is about the missing tubular bearing on 

N287SC. See Respondent's Response 'j[ 5. As an initial matter, Hancher's opinion on the subject 

is (in contrast to the prior opinion) so circumspect as to be irrelevant -he opines only that "the 

missing bushing is not necessarily attributable to" Respondent. I d. Because the FAA is required 

to prove its case to a preponderance of the evidence, not to a metaphysical certainty, the notion 

that Hancher cannot conclude that it was necessarily Respondent's fault that the bearing was 

missing does not help Respondent's case. Additionally, Hancher's reasoning for his conclusion 

that Respondent had not necessarily caused absence of the tubular bearing is based on 

undisputedly false information. The basis stated by Hancher is that N287SC "had two tire 

changed and a landing gear cylinder replacement after AMES performed its MLG change in 

March 2010." I d. 'j[ 5. However, the second tire change of the outboard tire on the right side of 

N287SC7 (the #4 tire) and the cylinder replacement both occurred after the tubular bearing was 

found missing. See Respondent's Response Exhibit 7 (documenting one tire change on March 

25, documenting the replacement of the missing bushing on April 17, documenting the 

replacement of the cylinder on April20 or 21, and documenting the removal and replacement of 

the wheel on April 28). While Hancher relies on two intervening tire changes and a gas cylinder 

change, only one of these three actually occurred prior to the vibration incident. Not only is 

Hancher's opinion so weak as to be meaningless, it is also demonstrably founded on incorrect 

facts. 

Additionally, there is an issue here with the source of Hancher's information. In 'j[ 5, 

Hancher references supposedly intervening tire changes and a cylinder replacement. But the only 

document that mentions tire changes at all is the log attached to Respondent's Response as 

Exhibit 7, and the only documents that reference the cylinder replacement are that log and a 

7 The missing bushing was on the right side, and changing an inboard tire does not involve moving the flying door. 

25 
CCIA logbook page. Neither of these documents were reviewed by Hancher. See id. ~ 2. So we 

know that Hancher was not only provided with undisclosed information on which he based his 

opinions (that tire changes and a gas cylinder replacement occurred at all), but that this 

undisclosed information was false (that these event occurred prior to the April16, 2010 vibration 

incident). 

This problem with~ 5 of Hancher's report is emphasized by a similar issue with~ 6 (2). 

This paragraph is troubling for two reasons. In that paragraph, Hancher states as a matter of fact 

that "in two instances the doors [were] replaced as a precaution and to satisfy CCIA and the 

FAA." Id. ~ 6 (2). This statement is troubling because there is no apparent basis for it, or reason 

for it, in the documents reviewed by Hancher. The notion that Respondent would replace a door 

just to satisfy CCIA is not referenced in any of the documents Hancher lists. See id. ~ 2(2). 

Which raises the question of why Hancher would be presenting as fact that the reason 

Respondent replaced the door was the placate CCIA and the FAA. The only explanation that 

seems apparent is that Hancher was provided with "facts" to consider in forming his expert 

opinion that are not disclosed in his report, and that are not actually facts. This further 

emphasizes the problem with ~ 5 - what exactly was Hancher considering? What other false 

"facts" did Respondent include for Hancher's consideration? 

The final generalization in ~ 5 of Hancher's report is that unspecified "more serious 

fmdings" documented by "the Inspector" were "not born out" by Respondent's corrective 

actions. Id. ~ 5. Normally a reference to documented findings would be taken as a reference to an 

inspector's statement. However, since Hancher was not provided with the inspector's statements 

from either Inspector Lipinski or Inspector Gasche, he was presumably referring to the Statement 

of the Case, which was written by Inspector Lipinski, and which Hancher was provided a copy 

26 
of. See id. ~ 2(2). Hancher himself notes that there was damage to fairings, migrating hinge pins, 

damage to wing doors, worn bushings, and the mis-routed anti-skid harness. !d. ~ 5. 

Additionally, Hancher references that there was a missing tubular bearing8 !d. Setting those 

aside, there were only three other discrepancies referenced in the statement of the case: damage 

to attach fittings, airframe damage, and attach cover damage. Respondent's Motion Exhibit 1 at 

1. All of these are born out in Respondent's corrective actions: 

Finding Documented By Inspector One Example Where Finding Is Reflected In 

Maintenance Documents 

Airframe damage Gouges in skin of right wing of N898AA, 

Exhibit Tat 14-15 (non-routine card 0005); 

Attach cover damage Cracked forward hinge cover on left side of 

N898AA, Exhibit T at 4, 6; 

Attach fitting damage Cracked bushing in fitting on left side of 

NR98AA,ExhihiLT_&27,28_ . . ........ 

Again, Hancher's statement is demonstrably incorrect. 

In sum, the pertinent parts of the Hancher report are undisputedly incorrect or rely on 

undisclosed, false information. It is undisputedly not the case that every issue requiring attention 

on all three of these aircraft was "wear and tear." It is undisputedly not the case that the findings 

documented by the Inspector were not reflected in the re-work packages completed. And 

Hancher's statements concerning the "intervening" actions on N287SC are based on false, 

undisclosed information. The report is, on its face, worthless, and must be disregarded. 

Conclusion 

As to each of the two main landing gear on each of the three aircraft the documentary 

evidence (mostly created by Respondent itself) unambiguously demonstrates that the 

8 Since Hancher was not provided with any other documentation on the missing tubular bearing, the Statement of the 

Case would be his only source of information on that discrepancy. Technically, this finding identified by the 

Inspector would not have been borne out based on the corrective actions required by AMES to clear the 

discrepancies, because CCIA had taken the corrective action in April2010. To the extent that Hancher's conclusion 

that the Inspector's findings were not born out is based on the missing tubular bearing, his conclusion is irrelevant 

because the conclusion was the result of incomplete information. 

27 
installations at issue in this case were improperly perfonned. Respondent's own documents 

repeatedly record errors in installation, and Respondent repeatedly defends itself by arguing only 

that it did not do the work on these parts (hydraulic lines and clamps, hinge cover assemblies, 

fairings, and gear fittings), when the maintenance documents in question explicitly establish that 

Respondent did perform that maintenance. When Respondent does acknowledge having 

performed a particular aspect of the maintenance, its defense is, when it is founded on evidence 

at all, founded almost entirely on the inadmissible non-expert opinion testimony on technical 

matters. This includes repeated efforts to invoke the notion that parts may have fallen off or been 

improperly reinstalled during improperly performed tire changes, even though this explanation is 

based entirely on the same non-expert's misunderstanding of the configuration of the landing 

gear and flying doors. The aspects of improper installation that are established by the 

documentary evidence in this case include, but are not limited to: 

On the right-hand side ofN287SC, Respondent failed to install the tubular bearing in the gear 

fitting. It is undisputed that the Respondent was responsible for installing the tubular bearing 

and that the tubular bearing was not on the aircraft shortly after Respondent had performed 

the installation. Respondent's only alternative explanation for why the tubular bearing was 

missing was to suggest that it fell off during an intervening tire change, but this notion was 

based on Becker's misunderstanding of the landing gear and flying door configuration. 

On the left-hand side of N899AA, the gear fitting was loose and needed to be re-shimrued. 

The FAA asserted and has presented expert testimony that this would have been a condition 

present at the time of installation. Respondent argued that the improper condition could have 

arisen during an improper tire change, but this notion is based on the same misunderstanding 

of the configuration of the aircraft. 

On the right-hand side of N899AA, the gear fitting was also improperly shimmed. 

Respondent does not dispute that the gear fitting was improperly shimmed, but blames it on 

another vendor. However, as Respondent notes on the same page of its Response, it is 

undisputed that Respondent did do this work. 

On N899AA and N898AA, the hydraulic lines on one side of the aircraft were improperly 

routed and clamped, in one case causing damage to the flying door. Respondent has asserted 

that it is not responsible for this because it did not do the work of routing or clamping the 

28 
hydraulic lines. On the contrary, the very manual provisions that Respondent used to approve 

the aircraft for return to service included this work on the hydraulic lines. 

In numerous places on N899AA and N898AA and N287SC, there was damage to various 

components of the hinge cover assembles, improperly secured hinge pins, and damage to 

associated structures likely by migrating hinge pins. Respondent universally responds to 

these by claiming that it was not responsible for anything to do with hinge pins and hinge 

covers. Contrary to Respondent's assertions, the maintenance manual section it used to 

approve the aircraft for return to service does require that Respondent secure the hinge 

covers, which include the hinges that the pins were migrating from. Further, when CCIA 

called Respondent to task specifically for failing to secure the hinge assemblies on N899AA, 

Respondent explicitly found that the root cause of the migrating hinge pins was its own 

errors during installation, which had occurred because Respondent's personnel had been 

unaware of Boeing standard procedures for securing these components. 

Without its "expert" testimony, Respondent has no defense whatsoever. But even if the "expert" 

opinions presented are considered, the Respondent's own documentary evidence conclusively 

establi§b~s that Respond-"lli_erred repeatedly_inperforming these installaJions. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Judge grant summary judgment 

and affirm the FAA's Complaint in full, both as to the allegations that Respondent improperly 

installed the landing gear on each aircraft and as to the sanction sought, on which subject 

Respondent made no response. 

\"" Respectfully submitted thil ( day of February, 2015. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

29 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

one copy via Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

. ____ .Washington, DC 20590 ... _______ ··-

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30'h Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

~~T~~Df Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

tH1 2 6 20i5 

Dated 

30 
In The Matter Of: 

Airbon '. Iaintenance and Engineering Services 

Jeffrey Becker 

October 29, 2014 

Legal Realtime Reporting 

622 E. Central Blvd. 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Original File 102914 Becker final. txt 

','fin-U-Scr.int® with Word Index £ 

! GOVERNMENT 

·:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-li . EXHIBIT · 

§ PP i _!,_.-1----

:5 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

ask it again. 

Are you aware of any maintenance actions that 

AMES took that weren't necessary? And by necessary I 

mean that would not have been called for by CCIA's 

maintenance requirements, or the Boeing AMM, but were 

just things that you were doing because CCIA wanted them 

done? 

86 

A. Yeah. I mean, really, you know, in my opinion, 

almost all the work done, I mean, again, we•ve never 

stated or agreed that the doors were misrigged to begin 

with. And specifically, not misrigged when they left 

AMES's facilities or control. 

You know, when I reviewed the specific 

nonroutines, again, all I see is wear and tear, blend and 

treat. You know, fixing nicks. Replacing a worn seal. 

16 Again, to me, these are normal operational type wear and 

17 tear items. When the airplane comes in for a "C" Check, 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

yes, a lot of these things may be written up, but not to 

the detail that was written up in the May visit. 

Q. I'm curious. I think you referred a couple 

times today to blending damage and the impression that I 

get when you refer to that is that you don't consider it 

a significant thing. 

A. No. 

MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. Leading. If you 
1 conclusion based on that is that they didn't find 

2 anything wrong. 

Q. Now, so you're saying so they -- so who --

112 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

this is written up -- M. Fahrubel, it looks to me, wrote 

up this discrepancy. Is that an AMES employee? 

A. Yeah, that's an AMES supervisor. And again, 

all these airplanes when they came in, Charles Working 

walked the airplane with the supervisors and the 

9 inspectors and wrote up nonroutines. Mr. Fahrubel was 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

probably the scribe 

Q. Okay. So 

A. -- initiating the nonroutines. 

Q. I'm sorry, who would've been walking around 

with Fahrubel, do you think? 

A. Mr. Working. He approved every single 

16 nonroutine that we did. 

17 Q. Okay. So Mr. Working and Fahrubel would've 

18 been working around and they observed something in the 

19 aircraft that resulted in them writing it up as an 

20 improper hardware stack up? 

21 A. Well, remember, the whole purpose for fairing 

22 the airplanes back to Wilmington was to check the doors, 

23 to make sure the doors were rigged. So we dropped or, 

24 i.e., removed and reinstalled every single one of the 

25 doors. So this is just the nonroutine checking for the 
139 

1 Q. And when this is saying -- based on what you 

2 were saying before, when this document says remove crack 

3 or remove edge damage, is that something that's being 

4 done by abrading the surface to smooth it out? 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Correct. 

Okay. So that was 6. And have we hit --

Item number 6. 

Did we hit everything, 1 through 5? 

Yes. We've worked through those. 

Okay. 

Actually, the next item in your stack is item 

12 number 5. So there's a little mix up there. 

13 Q. Okay. 

14 A. Again, it's a skin gouge. Right main gear wing 

15 door and it was blended and treated. Again, a minor 

16 repair. 

17 Item number 7, fairing above left wing main 

18 gear chafed; blended. It's a blend and treat. 

19 Q. Let me ask you, when I read that something is 

20 chafed, that, to my mind, is usually caused by two things 

21 rubbing together. Would that be your understanding as 

22 well? 

23 A. Correct. Or it could've been -- or again, it's 

24 a -- it's a wheel well, main landing gear wheel well 

25 environment. An awful lot of stuff happens in the way of 
AMES, Inc. Maintenance Training 

B-727 Main Landing Gear Wing Door 

Removal and Installation Review 

Course Number. MRO-MZ-202 Revision Date: June 10, 2010 

For Training Purpos~s Only 

4..!1!.!!~2.!!~ AMES, Inc. Maintenance Training 

B-727 Main Landing Gear Flying Door 

Removal and Installation Review 

An AMES, Inc. customer has recently experienced several instances of loose, 

missing and worn hardware found in the B-727 Main Landing Gear Wing Doors in 

aircraft which had undergone heavy maintenance in I LN. The worn and missing 

hardware was discovered during a FAA follow up inspection affected by an aircraft 

returning to the airport due to excessive vibrations encountered during flight. !t 

was determined that the MLG Wing Door had excessive play in the foTWard and 

"- aft door hinges due to the improper number of washers Installed in the forward 

hinges and worn bushings in the hinges leading to the improper amount of Critical 

Maximum Clearance as outlined in the attached training materials. It is suspected 

that the doors may have been Improperly rigged by Maintenance Technicians 

during a heavy check and signed off by Inspection. This training module will 

highlight the proper maintenance procedures for the removal and installation of 

the B~ 727 Right or left MLG Wing Door. 

Specific attention must be paid to the Critical Maximum Clearance Dimensions of 

the Main Gear Wing Door Forward and Aft Main hinges. 

Reference the following slide for photos of the original discrepancy. 

For Training Purposes Only Far Traming Purpo>~> Only 

~GOVERNMENT 

j EXHIBIT 

i &Q 
Forward MLG Wing Door Hinge 

~· 

~-

kiNGI .u;t.ai.Y Sf:f DET,ll. I 

-·- '-CTUII!.T!Otl fiOO ,-.rr.t.CHME~T llot.T 

ffiX~ .. roo .... 

For Training Purposes Only ForTrainr~g PurpMes Only 

Forward MLG Wing Door Hinge 

For Trainina Purposes Only For Trat;;lng Purpo;es On\y 

Improper Critical 

Maximum Clearance 
Aft MLG Wing Door Hinge 

.A.M!i~Jm!!§ 

Description and Operation of Main 

Landing Gear Wing Doors 

Reference B-727 AMM 32-12-00 

A. The wing doors are built up from a front and rear spar, with ribs, 

stiffeners, and an inner and an outer skin. 

B. The front and rear spars project beyond the upper end of the door 

where the ends of the spars are machined to provide hinges. 

C. The doors are hinged to the inboard flap inner raiL 

D. An actuator rod is attached to a support fitting mounted on the door 

center rib. 

E. The opposite end of the actuator rod is attached to the shock strut. 

F. The door end of the actuator rod can be extended to hold the wing 

door out from the gear to provide access for wheel and brake removal. 

G. See next slide for pictorial of Wing Door 

For Training Purposes Only 

For T1alning Purl>"'"' Only 
Main Landing Gear Wing Doors 

For Training Purposes Only 

ForTrair>ing Purpos.e< Only 

.A. A!.!!~..!!!!~ 

Main Landing Gear Wing Doors 

A. A red stripe on the actuator rod insert is revealed when the rod is 

extended. 

B. The door end of the actuator rod can be extended to hold the wing 

door out from the gear to provide access for wheel and brake removal. 

Vl~ ~~~ J.CT\II,.Tl"'- ~~~ 

IUll'lCE tOS!TlOIC) 

For Training Purposes Only 

For Tr~ir~ing Purpm~s Only 
A.8!.!i~2.!!t!!i 

Main Landing Gear Wing Doors 

Removal and Installation 

Reference B-727 AMM 32·12-11 

A. Remove Main Gear Wing Door. 

B. Support upper end of door and remove hinge bolts and hollow hinge pins. 

NOTE: Observe type of bushing Installation of the Forward Hinge (reference Fig. 401, sheet 2), 

number and position of washers under nuts and bolt heads. 

C. Forward hinge is shimmed wlth washers between hinge lugs to provide fore and aft adjustment of 

door. Care must be taken to record location of washers to ensure correct assembly. 

For Training Purposes Only For Tra1nmg Ptlrpose< Only 

A.!lli!~2.!!!!! 

Main Landing Gear Wing Doors 

• Removal and Installation (continued) 

D. Install replacement Main Gear Wing Door. 

E. Insert washer's between lugs of forward hinges to lot<~te door in fore and aft position 

to provide a clearance between lugs of aft hinge. 

F. Reference A.MM 32-iQ-11 Main Gear Wing Door Installation (Figure 401, Sheet 2, Detail B} for 

possible variations in configuration offorward hinge. Reference IPC 32.-10-0G-10 to determine the 

correct hinge part number. 

For Training Purposes Only For Tralmng Purpo~e< Only 

..\olt,. •. ,"l:"'~to\o\UI"" 

r;lf.&",l.l'l!,.,..,lt 
.A!llii~..2!!~ 

Main Gear Wing Door Aft Hinge 

G. Install replacement Main Gear Wing Door 

H. Insert washers between lugs of forward hinges to locate door in fore and aft 

position to provide a 0.02 inch min. clearance between lugs of aft hinge. 

.A!l!!!~..2!!~ 

Forward Hinge 

Bolt Head is to 

Be in Aft Position 

A.tt Hinge Critical 

Dimen~lon 0Jl2 inch 

Minimum Clearancu 

Each Side 

-:=!..,. 

For Training Purposes Only 

ForTraming Purposes Only 

Main Landing Gear Wing Doors 

I. After making forward and aft hinge adjustments, check for chafing 

between door and fairing 

For Training Purooses Only For T1amlng Purj;ose> Only 

:'--

' ~ 

Aft Hinge 

Bolt 

Head 

can go 

In either 

Direction 
.6./lli!~~!!!E 

Main Landing Gear Wing Doors 

J. (Continued) After making forward and aft hinge adjustments, check for 

chafing between door and fairing 

Door Open 

.6./lli!~~!!!E 

AFTER ADJUSTMENTCHECK FOR CHAFING 

BETWEEN DOOR AND FAIRING 

For Training Purposes Only ForTr~inin€ Purposi'.S On\y 

Door Closed 

B 

Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

A. Jack airplane for gear retraction lAW AMM Chapter 7. 

B. Pressurize hydraulic system and open wheel well doors on affected gear. 

C. Install main wheel well door down lock and remove external ground lock from gear 

(AMM 32-00-11). 

D. Return ground door release handle to up position. 

E. Check length of actuating rod between centers of attachment points to be 

approximately 32 inches {See Figure 1 below). 

Figure 1 

INM 

~~· fWD 
Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

F. Remove end plate from door lAW AMM 32.-12-11 {Flg. 401). 

G. Retract the landing gear. 

IIOE 

'"'"" 

INBD ~~· FWD .. 

Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

{Continued) Ref. AMM 32·12·11 {fig. 501) 

fl Measure vertical distance inboard end of door is out of fairing with wing contour. 

I. If door is more than 0.05 inch above or 0,20 below wing contour, adjust actuating rod until door 

fairs within limits. 

NOTE: One half turn of actuating rod end moves end of door approximately 

0.25 inch. 

ACTUAT!ON 

'"' 

c;,., 

For Trainingd?urposes10n!y 
Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

J. Ref. AMM 32-12-ll.lnstall end plate and adjust to fair with body contour by varying 

thickness of laminated shims installed between end plate brackets and door. 

NOTE: Whenever shim laminations are removed, coat exposed surfaces with 

hydraulic fluid resistant primer. 

·~..Q!!~ 

Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

K. Ref. AMM 32-12-11. Install and adjust forward up stop bumper until wing door 

fairs within 0.06 inch with wing contour. 

~~··. lli!IO FWD 
Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

L. Suspend a weight of between 375 to 425 pounds from inboard end of door with load equally 

distributed between spars. 

M. Shorten door actuation rod until sag at forward Inboard corner of door is 0.15 +/· 0.05 inch.. 

CAlJTION: A MAXIMUM OF 16THREADS MAY BE EXPOSED AFTER ADJUSTING ROD END. 

N, Remove weightand extend landing gear. 

0. Adjust rod end in actuation rod to dean inner surface of door fitting by 0.02 +0.00{-0.01 inch Ref. AMM 32-12-11 (Fig. 501). 

P. lock door actuation rod adjustment. Tighten rod end check nut 100(}-1200 

pound-inches. 

4.!.!.!!~..1!!~ 

Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

Q. Remove wheel well door lock and operate door release handle to dose doors. Do not allow door 

release handle to snap into up position. 

WARNING: ENSURE THAT DOOR ACTION PATH IS ClEAR OF EQUIPMENT BEFORE 

CLOSING DOORS. RAPID AcriON OF DOORS MAY INJURE PERSONNEL OR 

DAMAGE EQUIPMENT. 

R. Retract landing gear and check clearance between safety stops and bumper 

plate on outboard door. Add or remove shims from under safety stops 

until bottom of end plate dears bumper plate of outboard wheel well door 

by 0.05 inch. 

DETAIL A For Training Purposes Only ... 5 • _,pose, Only 
·~!.!!~2!!!:rn 

Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door 

S. Ref. AMM 32-12-11 Check edge trim around peripheiY of door. Gap between 

edge of door and adjacent structure to be within 0.10 and 0.25 inch. 

NOTE: Gap between hinge line and flap track to be between 0.18 and 0.35 

inch. 

T. If it is necessary to adjust door in a fore or aft direction to provide a clearance 

between aft hinge lugs~ Install an extra washer between lugs at forward door 

hinge while maintaining a .020 minimum clearance in the aft hinge lugs lAW 

AMM Reference 32-12-11. Figure 401. With extra washer installed behind 

forward lug, door moves forward. With washer installed in front of rear lug, 

door moves aft. 

NOTE: Gap between hinge line and flap track to be between 0.18 and 0.35 

inch. 

U. Perform a retraction cycle and check operation of door. Check that landing 

gear control lever is in DN position. 

V. Lower airplane and remove jacks. 

For Training Purposes Only forTr~ming Purpos.._, Only 

.A&~2!!!:rn 

B-727 MLG Wing Door Hinge Pin 

Installation 

• Recent inspections of MLG Wing Door Hinge Pins 

have found discrepancies related to improper 

removal and installation of the Hinge Pin. 

• Reference the following information to review the 

accepted procedures lAW myboeingfleet.com 

Component Overhaul Manual Product Standard 

Processes. 

• BAC 5018, page 34. 

• See the following information for details. 

For Training Purposes Only 

FoJ Tr•lning Purposes Only " 
A!.llii~.J!!!N~ 

B-727 MLG Wing Door Hinge Pin 

Installation 

"'-="• "''"'"'pin<. I<> ,..,.....d - ........ ,_ '""'~~" •tad< ,.-) ....... ::'11 ... ) ... """""" ... 

Flfl~'* 310 '-'""I'll!~.., "-10, ....-., ..., ...... .,<1"""''""~"""""'' ~n" "'",.,..,,...,,...,coo""' .... _ .......... - .......... ._. ...... __.oil \J8 ,,..,., ... , ••• """""""" --... """'~'-"''' "n<H-'"<1" .......... I<>_.. ..... """"'"tl""""" '""""' ... .-"' ~rot•op..U <>t -kO;l ,.,.-....,. ,..,_,li<>•t. """"""'k.o<n""''""..,"l>'l<>'"· U<><><iWIU.<>l...,...,..,mhi"'J<>MI...,..,"'"""-1<1 

"""""' 

~ 

........... >o "" ......... ....., "' ............. ~-...... '-"<4 ..... ..t "'" "'" wl~· "'"""' ... ................. ..,.,""''-""'"h""""""'"'· .., ......... ., ...... ~~-"'~0"""""'" """"'"'<>l<>IOOO-- .,....,. .... .,.,...,.,""u<>JliHt""><>~al oi ... U .. uti><>"''""'~""""""' ... ><0 ................ 

1 

[~ UNCRIMPI!D 

-

_._ 

~ 

f'IOlJRQ ;I~ C .. lMPO .. O "rHO! I!OWS. Of FOI<MotO ,.....o <;XTI<ll0"0 IUNGE:o 
What is the critical minimum clearance 

dimension for the aft hinge? 

~ A) 0.020 

0 B) 0.030 

() C) 0.040 

0 D) 0.050 

I 

... sorrec\; Clickanywhere\b .I [lncorre;cl:(;lic.k anywhere\o I ·· • •·.·· co~ Your ansv.:•.V•i • • • i • • ; •• · • •· .·. 

You did notans\.;,er\his ; I .· < ··· ·• YO~ iTiUst:an:~VjettD_e ,question . · .. _J)~fore cortinuing .... 

for Troining Purpo•~• Only 

What hinge gets shimmed to meet the critical 

minimum clearance dimension in the aft hinge? 

0 A) Main gear door aft hinge 

0 B) Aft hinge 

u C) Main gear fwd bearing 

~ D) Fwd hinge 

I 

Correct- Click anywhere to I 

con Your answer: 

I Incorrect- Click anywhere to I 

You did not answer this I 

You must answer the question I s~b~-it ·---J r --C1ea_r_ ... -J 

before continuing 

ForTr•l"ing Purpo5es Only " 
What should be checked on a gear swing after 

the adjustment of the wing door aft hinge? 

C!) A) Chafing of aft hinge to fairing 

u B) Chafing of fwd hinge to fairing 

0 C) Main gear outbd tire chaffing against 

the wing 

0 D) None of the above 

I. --·Correct- Click anywhere.to ·I 1- lncorr<ect- Click anywhere to I 

' . con y ouranswer: ' .• . . _,_ • . . ·. • 

Voi/didnot answer this • _[ .- ·_ ' -._ • \ 

YoU_ mUst, answer tt)E! questiof! 1:: r-~~-b~~;-~J c·~- Cl~~-r ___ l,- , -: , pe.fore continuing . _ •-· .. . . .. _ ;_, 

For Tr~lning Purpos~ Only " 

Care must be taken to record location of washers during 

disassembly of the mig wing door forward hinge to ensure 

correct assembly. 

® A) True 

u B) False 

Correct- Click anywhere to l con Your answer: 

j_ Incorrect- Click anywhere to l 

You did not answer this I 

You must answer the question r·. Sobm;; ··-l ~ Clear J before continuing 

Fnr T.-.inlng Purposes Only " 
With an extra washer installed behind the forward hinge lug of the MLG 

Wing Door, the MLG Wing Door moves __ . With the washer installed in 

0 

.!1 

0 

0 

front of the rear lug ofthe MLG Wing Door, the door moves __ . 

A) Aft, Forward 

B) Forward, Aft 

C) Both are correct 

D) There should be no movement 

I CorreGt: Cliek arlyWh<;re to I \ _JnFol-re9t .. ~_ c_n:C_k 'anywh~r~ tO. __ , 

.. ·'. · ·. con ~your ahSWer: >. . ' ·,, __ . .·· ,., .. 

., ,·········· ... ·· , v ou did not answer this I , .. ·.·.· 

You rnust apswer _the que~tionl r S~b~ft ..•... ·. before wnlinuln1J: . . .• ' .. ~CCI~~~ J Fm Tr:ainlng Pll'1'0>es Ooly 

Quiz 

Your Score {score} 

Max Score {max-score} 

Number of Quiz {total-attempts} 

Attempts 

Question Feedback/Review Information Will 

Appear Here 

Fm To olning Purpose• Only 

----

"