U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant, 

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

vs. DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA CaseNo. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. Judge Sullivan

The FAA hereby replies in support ofits Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. Respondent's Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment discloses no genuine issues ofmaterial 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 exclusivelyon inadmissible non-expert opinions. Respondent cannot overcome either the documentary evidence against Respondent, or the FAA's expert testimony. TheFAAis entitled tojudgment as amatter oflaw as to each ofthe aircraft at issue inthis 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 summaryjudgment. Respondent again asks the Judge to weigh evidence and again invokes matters ofcredibility. Respondent again relies almost exclusively on the personal knowledge and opinion ofJeffrey Becker, even though Becker has no personal recollection of

Ithe condition ofthe 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 infavor of its current opinions, unsupportedby 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. 1However, it should benoted 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 judgmentbecause the documentary evidence conclusively establishes Respondent's violations. II. Relevance ofCondition ofAircraft at Time ofInitial Maintenance as Compared to Condition ofAircraftWhen Later Inspected Respondent makes several references to whether the FAA has demonstrated that the condition ofthe aircraft wheninspected in May 2010 was identical to the condition ofthe aircraft

1 AlthoughChristensenwas untimelyidentified as aninitial expertwitnessbecause the undersigned was out ofthe office due to an illness and death in the family, Christensenwas timelyidentified as arebuttal expertwitness. Since none ofthe grounds asserted inRespondent'sMotionto Exclude, orin the Judge's Ordergrantingthatmotion, relate to the FAA'stimelydisclosure ofChristensen as a rebuttal expert, Christensenwould still appearto be available as a rebuttal expert. 2at 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 ofthe case. The FAA does not assert and has never asserted that the condition ofthe aircraft at the time they were returned to service is identical to their condition at the time theywere inspected in May 2010 (or April 2010, for the right-hand side ofN287SC). Some parts ofthe condition were the same at these two points in time. Forexample, the tubularbearingwas missing atbothpoints in time, the shimming washers
were improperly configured at bothpoints in time, and the hydraulic lines were mis-clamped at both points in time. But many ofthe 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 1at 1(Inspector Lipinski explaining that damage to the aircraft occurred as a result ofthe 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 longerintervening 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 aircraftfor return to service with such damage alreadypresentwouldbe a violation as well, and a more serious one at that, but that does notappear to havebeenthe situationhere. 3one particular issue bears emphasis, and that is the missing tubular bearing on N287SC and, more generally, Respondent's speculation aboutimproperlyperformed 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 hethought 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 ofchanging a tire wouldn't have anything to do with the missing tubularbearing. 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 ofthe actuationrod. Id. In its Response, Respondent doubles down on the erroneous explanation provided by Becker, not only expounding for five pages on the subject ofhow the hypothetical improper tire change defeats the FAA's case, see Respondent's Response at 17-22, but also injecting the notion ofa speculative improper tire change as an explanation for all manner ofills that befell the landing gear and doors. See, e.g., Respondent's Response at 9-14, 20. Some ofthese fall into the same mistake as Respondent did intrying to explain away the absence ofthe tubular bearing in N287SC

- Respondent tries to write off problems with the gear fitting by citing to a hypothetical improper removal ofthe attachment bolt, even though the attachment bolt is on the other end ofthe 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.

4First, Respondent errs in identifying (without any evidentiary support) this as a "short cut." As FAA's expert testimony shows, the suggestedimproper method ofchanging a tire was, inreality, a more difficult and time-consuming process than the proper method. See Exhibit JJ

**~** 37. 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 ifthey were occurring. Third, Respondent has provided no explanation for why it was, somehow, only the aircraft that theyhad performed landing gear changes onthat hadproblems with the hinge cover assemblies. The May 2010 inspections did not only coverthese 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 ofC 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, butthis somehow onlyresulted indamageto the aircraft that Respondent worked on. While this will be noted below, itbears emphasis here- there is no evidence whatsoever that anytire changes were everperformed improperly. Noris there anyreason to believethat 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 evenunderstand whatpart ofthe aircraft is involved- couldneverbeusedbyareasonable finder offact to conclude that an improper tire change actually did take place and, therefore, cannot create a genuine issue ofmaterial fact to preclude summaryjudgment. 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 8-10; see also Respondent's

5Motion at 12-17. In general, Respondent addresses these defects with little, ifany, 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 themaintenance inquestion. 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 ofthis 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 ofwhich ones were based on FAA inspector findings). And Beckertestified 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 clearlybe seen on the right-hand side, where there is a more detailed write-up ofthe 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

6bereplace, and there is nothing inthe 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 conditionwas the result ofnormal use ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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 summaryjudgment. Respondent improperlyinstalled 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 vendorwho was responsible for this. In support ofthis assertion, Respondent cites only to a passage ofBecker's deposition relating to a hydraulic line, where Becker asserts that

7because 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 athis 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 ofthe reinstallation ofthe flying door. See Exhibit C at 422 

### 'IfAL(10)(11). Indeed, in the immediatelypreceding discussion ofthe loose gimbal fitting on the left-hand flying door, Respondent explicitly asserts that it used exactly those parts ofthe 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. Respondentimproperlyinstalled this gear fitting. CrackedHinge Loop: A hinge loop on right forward hinge cover was cracked, requiring replacement ofthe 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 insertingpins inthe 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 ofremoving the flying doors only involves removing three screws, but

8presents no evidence ofthis

- 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 weretwo write-ups by CCIA for migrating and improperlyinstalled 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. DamagedAngle: 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 ofthis is unhelpful to its case. First, Respondent asserts that the damage angle was caused by the cracked hinge loop. See

3 As discussed iuthe FAA'sResponse, the B727 manual system oftendoes notprovide details iua particular manual section, requiring the mechanic to have knowledge from other sources, such as more specific manual provisions. See FAA'sResponse at 16-18. 9Respondent'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 betrue, butthe 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 installationperformedbyRespondent. 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 briefthat the components were only subject to normal wear and tear cannot create a genuine issue ofmaterial 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 bereplaced. 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

10hypothetical intervening tire change that was improperlyperformed. See Respondent's Response at 12. As previously discussed, the maintenance performed byRespondent 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 ifthere was, Respondent has presented no evidence that the cracks observed here are the sort ofdamage 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 notedimmediately above, this contention is without foundation. Right-HandBushings Worn BeyondLimits: 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 simplyre-install components that were wornbeyond limits becausethe manual sectionit was referencing did not specifically say that you couldn't install improper components. Id. This contention is laughable -justbecause amanual section says to remove andreinstall 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

11condition, 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 bythe testimony ofBecker who, as discussed elsewhere, has no qualification to testify as an expert on aviation maintenance. Additionally, Respondent does not address at all whether the excessivelyworn components are the result ofits improperinstallation. Left-Hand CrackedForwardHinge/Left-HandAftHinge MigratingHinge Pin/Left-Hand Bushings Worn Beyond Limits: Respondent makes no distinction between the cracked forward hinge on the left-hand side ofthe aircraft, instead citing back to its discussion ofthe 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 itremains the case thatthere is no reasonto believethat anyimpropertire changes were performed. CrackIn Right-HandFlyingDoor: Respondent does not dispute that there was a crack in the flying door, but simply relies on Becker's beliefthat, because the crack could be repaired by blending, itwas 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 ofRespondent'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, butis 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

12deposition cited byRespondent is a general passage where Beckerruminates: "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 clearhow such an assertion- which classifies damage as "wearand tear" without any regardto the cause ofthe 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 assemblyto cause gouges in the surface ofthe wing. Exhibit JJ

**~** 30. Chafing Damage to LeftFairing: 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 ablend 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 doorwas notproperlyinstalled. See Exhibit JJ

**~~** 31, 33.

13Gouges in the Lefi-Hand Flying Door near the attach bracket: Respondent does not dispute that there were three gouges inthe left-hand flying door. See Respondent's Motion at 14. Nordoes Respondent assert that they were onlywear andtear. 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 notproperlyinstalled. See Exhibit JJ

**~~** 31, 33. Gouges in the Left-HandFlyingDoor 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 simplyrepeats its prior claims that ithadnothingto do with thehinge 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 offas performingthereinstallation and securing ofthe 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 ofdamage caused ifthere had been some other intervening improper maintenance. This is particularly significanthere where the damage was not damage to the cover

14itself, 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 experttestimony. CrackedBushing in Left-HandFlyingDoorFitting: 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 ofthe bushing was caused by undue stresses placed on the hinge by the improper installation ofthe 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 properlyinstalled. 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 ofRespondent'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 properlyrig the flying doors. See Exhibit JJ ,-r,-r 11, 31, 33.

15Cracked ForwardAttach Plate on Left-HandFlying Door: The totality ofRespondent'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 ofthe 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. CrackedAttach Plate on Right-HandFlyingDoor: The totality ofRespondent'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 ofthe landing gear. See Respondent's Response at 15. Again, the damage to this component, when taken together with all ofthe 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 ofLeft-Hand Flying Door: Regarding the replacement of the left-hand flying door, Respondent simplynotes that the customerhad itreplace 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 137 Most importantly, the discrepancy written up byRespondent'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

16events postulatednow byRespondent is irrational. Ifthe customer was goingto have Respondent replace flying doors rather than have Respondent do a simple re-adjustment, why would the customerhavehad Respondent go to all ofthe trouble ofdoing the repairs on this flying door (or any ofthe flying doors)? Both flying doors were removed from all ofthese aircraft- yet only two were replaced4 Rather, the evidence indicates that there actually was something wrong with the door- that the door had beenbentbythe stress placed on itbybeing repeatedly opened and closed when out ofrig. Exhibit JJ '1!'1!. 11, 31, 33. VI. N287SC (Exceptfor the Previously Discussed Missing TubularBearing) As withthe 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 ofWorn 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 wehave no substantial evidence onthe condition ofthe 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 (IAW) 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 otherdoor that was replaced was theright-hand door onN287SC. 17accordance 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 ofa 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 argumentremains 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 Cat423

**~** 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 oftheir responses generally, and specifically Respondent's blanket reliance on pages 86-87 ofBecker's deposition for the notion that every single piece ofdamage that can be repaired with a blend and treat is "normal wear and tear." Respondent first asserts thatthis damage was probably causedbyaprotruding orloosehingepin. See Respondent's Response at 17. Then, becausethe damage was corrected bya blend and treat, Respondent insists (as ithas for every otherblend and treat) that this damage was "normal wear and tear." See id. However, these two assertions contradict each other. Ifthe 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

18illustrates the flimsy nature ofRespondent'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 treatingmeans thatthe 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 ofinvestigation to CCIA and CCIA's response, and the FAA's letter ofinvestigation 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 inits letter ofresponse 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 byignoring 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

19Investigation 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. Respondentmakes threemisleading, 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 onN899AA, resulting inthe migration ofhinge 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 ofthe 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 positionthat ithadnothing to do with thehinge pin installation. Respondent's Motion at 23. This assertion is irrelevant to the question ofwhether Respondent admitted responsibility at the time. Respondent expressly admitted that it had beenresponsible for securing the hinge pins as part of the installation, andthatithad erred inthe course ofthatinstallation. The second concerns Respondent's reliance onthe statements ofBecker 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 ofthis litigation Respondent now rejects CCIA's conclusions. Again, however, Respondent's position now is at



### 20odds 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 ofthe 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 simplyrepeating 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 ofresponsibility 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, whenthe questionwas what it admitted atthe time. The third concerns the extent ofRespondent's corrective action. Respondent asserts that all ofthe corrective action it took with regards to N287SC and N898AA was in relation to its failure to properlyperform A checks on these aircraft, during whichRespondent shouldhave, but did not, detect the problems caused byits initial installations. See Respondent's Response at 23- 24, 27. Respondent's assertionthat the corrective actions it documented were lip1itedto A checks is in error. First, the corrective actions listed on the second pages ofExhibits V and EE include drafting new task cards with more specific instructions on how to perform a removal and installation ofthe main landing gear. Exhibit V at 2, Exhibit EE at 2; see Exhibit HH at 2 (noting the development ofthese task cards, and how they will "prevent a reoccurrence ofthe issues encountered."). Second, the corrective actions listed on the second pages ofExhibit 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 ofthe flying doors, discussed how to rig

21the flying doors, and discussed how to securehingepins. Exhibit QQ at 2 ("This training module will highlight the proper maintenance procedures for the removal and installation ofthe B-727 Right or Left MLG Wing Door."), 9-23. Although a better understanding ofthese topics would presumablyhelp a technician conduct an A check, there is no actual mention ofA 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 simplyerroneous. 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 reallymeant 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 ofthose 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 ofresponse, where the results ofthose 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 disagreeingwiththem in abrief. 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

22interesting 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 ofthe aircraft, the corrective actions taken to address the damage to the aircraft, and the significance (or lack thereof) ofthose 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 Hancherreport is to onlyone sentence ofoneparagraph 

### (-,r 5), and so that will bediscussed below.5In paragraph 5, the only paragraph ofthe report on which Respondent relies, Hancher offers two generalizations and one specific opinion. His first generalization is that out ofthe 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 ofHancher's statement, is problematic for Respondent because there undisputedly were

5 Because Respondent doesnot assert anyrelevance to the remainder ofthe Hancherreport, and the FAAconcurs thatit has no relevance, it will notbe addressedin detail here. 23required corrective actions that addressed conditions that were not wear and tear. For example, in '1[5 Hancherreferences themisrouting ofan anti-skid conduit. See id. There is no dispute that the anti-skid conduit on the right side ofN287SC (which was the onlymis-routed anti-skid conduit
onthese three aircraft) was mis-routed. There is no suggestion that it somehowjumped from one side ofthe landing gear to another due to wear and tear. While the mis-routing ofthe 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 improperinstallation). 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? Ifhe did considerthem, thenhis conclusionthat everything is wear and tear is undisputedly incorrect.6 IfHancher 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 Hanchernotprovided 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 opinionis withoutvalue and canbe disregarded.

6Themissingtubularbearing onN287SC was also indisputablynotthe result ofwear and tear. However, replacement ofthe missingtubular bearing was not a corrective action documentedbyArvfES in the re-work packages because ithadbeendone byCCIA after the vibrationincident onAprill6, 2010. 24The 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. Id. Because the FAA is required to prove its case to a preponderance ofthe 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." Id. 'j[ 5. However, the second tire change ofthe outboard tire on the right side of N287SC7 (the #4 tire) and the cylinderreplacement 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 ofthe cylinder on April20 or 21, and documenting the removal and replacement of the wheel on April 28). While Hancherrelies ontwo intervening tire changes and a gas cylinder change, only one ofthese 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, Hancherreferences supposedlyinterveningtire changes and a cylinder replacement. Butthe 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 bushingwas ontheright side, and changing an inboard tire does notinvolve moving the flying door. 25CCIA logbook page. Neither ofthese documents were reviewed byHancher. 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 occurredpriorto the April16, 2010 vibration incident). This problem

**with~** 5 ofHancher'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 offact 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 ofthe 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 Respondentinclude 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 areference to documented findings would be taken as areference 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 presumablyreferring to the Statement ofthe Case, which was written byInspector Lipinski, and which Hancher was provided a copy

26of. See id.**~** 2(2). Hancherhimselfnotes 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 ofthe case: damage to attach fittings, airframe damage, and attach cover damage. Respondent's Motion Exhibit 1 at 1. All ofthese areborn outinRespondent's corrective actions: Finding Documented ByInspector 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 statementis demonstrably incorrect. In sum, the pertinent parts ofthe 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 ofthese aircraft was "wear and tear." Itisundisputedly 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. Thereport is, onits face, worthless, and mustbe disregarded. Conclusion As to each ofthe two main landing gear on each ofthe three aircraft the documentary evidence (mostly created by Respondent itself) unambiguously demonstrates that the

8 SinceHancher was not provided with any other documentation on the missing tubular bearing, the Statement ofthe Case wouldbehis only source ofinformationonthatdiscrepancy. Technically, this finding identifiedbythe Inspector wouldnot have beenborne out based on the corrective actions requiredbyAMES to clear the discrepancies, because CCIAhad taken the corrective actioninApril2010. To the extent that Hancher's conclusion that the Inspector's findings were notborn out is based on the missing tubular bearing, his conclusionis irrelevant because the conclusionwas the result ofincomplete information. 27installations at issue in this case were improperly perfonned. Respondent's own documents repeatedly record errors in installation, and Respondent repeatedly defends itselfby 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 ofthe 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 thatparts mayhave fallen offorbeen improperlyreinstalled during improperlyperformed tire changes, even though this explanation is based entirely on the same non-expert's misunderstanding ofthe configuration ofthe landing gear and flying doors. The aspects of improper installation that are established by the documentaryevidence inthis case include, but are not limited to: Ontheright-hand side ofN287SC, Respondent failed to install the tubularbearing inthe gear fitting. Itis undisputed that the Respondent was responsible for installing the tubularbearing 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 offduring an intervening tire change, but this notion was based onBecker'smisunderstanding ofthe landing gear and flying door configuration. On the left-hand side ofN899AA, 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 ofinstallation. Respondent argued that the improper condition could have arisen during an improper tire change, butthis notion is based onthe same misunderstanding ofthe configuration ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofrouting or clamping the

28hydraulic lines. On the contrary, the verymanual provisions that Respondent used to approve the aircraft for returnto service included this work onthehydraulic lines. In numerous places on N899AA and N898AA and N287SC, there was damage to various components ofthe 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 onN899AA, 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 ofBoeing standardprocedures for securing these components. Without its "expert" testimony, Respondent has no defense whatsoever. But even ifthe "expert" opinions presented are considered, the Respondent's own documentary evidence conclusively

**establi§b~s** that Respond-"lli_erred repeatedly_inperformingthese installaJions.
WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Judge grant summaryjudgment 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 Respondentmadeno response. 

# \"" Respectfully submitted thil ( day ofFebruary, 2015.

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel

29CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifythat the foregoing Motion for SummaryJudgmentwas sent: original and one copy via certified mail to: FederalAviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000
one copyvia Federal Express to: The HonorableJ.E. Sullivan AdministrativeLaw Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, 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 ofthe Regional Counsel 

### tH1 2 6 20i5 Dated

30

## In The Matter Of: 

## Airbon '. Iaintenance andEngineeringServices

Jeffrey Becker October29, 2014

LegalRealtimeReporting 622 E. CentralBlvd.

Orlando, FL 32801

OriginalFile 102914Becker final.txt 

### ','fin-U-Scr.int® withWordIndex £ ! GOVERNMENT ·:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-li . EXHIBIT · § 

# PP i _!,_.-1---- :51 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 ofAMES, Inc. MaintenanceTraining B-727 Main Landing Gear Wing Door

Removal and Installation Review

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

**Purpos~s** Only

**4..!1!.!!~2.!!~** AMES, Inc. MaintenanceTraining B-727 Main Landing Gear Flying Door Removal and Installation Review An AMES, Inc. customer has recently experienced several instances ofloose, missing and worn hardware found in the B-727 Main Landing GearWing Doors in aircraftwhich had undergone heavy maintenance in ILN. Theworn and missing hardware was discovered during a FAAfollow up inspection affected by an aircraft returningtothe airportdueto excessivevibrations encountered duringflight. !t was determinedthatthe MLG Wing Doorhad excessive play inthefoTWard and "- aftdoorhinges dueto theimpropernumberofwashers Installed in theforward

hinges and worn bushings in thehinges leadingto theimproperamountofCritical Maximum Clearance as outlined in the attachedtraining materials. It is suspected thatthe doors may have beenImproperly rigged by MaintenanceTechnicians duringa heavycheckand signed offby Inspection. This training module will highlightthe propermaintenance proceduresforthe removal and installation of the

**B~**727 Right or leftMLG Wing Door. Specific attention must bepaid tothe Critical Maximum Clearance Dimensions of the Main GearWing Door Forward and AftMain hinges. Reference thefollowing slidefor photosofthe original discrepancy. ForTraining Purposes Only FarTraming

**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


# ....

ForTraining Purposes Only

**ForTrainr~g** PurpMesOnly


# 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 GearWing Doors Reference B-727 AMM 32-12-00
A. The wing doors are built up from afront and rear spar, with ribs, stiffeners, and an inner and an outerskin. B. Thefront and rear spars projectbeyond the upper end ofthe door wherethe ends ofthe spars are machined to provide hinges. C. The doors are hingedtotheinboard flap innerraiL D. An actuatorrod is attached to a supportfitting mounted on the door centerrib. E. The opposite end ofthe actuatorrod is attached totheshock strut. F. The doorend ofthe actuatorrod can be extended to hold the wing dooroutfrom the gearto provide accessforwheel and brake removal. G. See next slide for pictorial ofWing Door For Training Purposes Only For T1alning Purl>"'"' Only

# Main Landing Gear Wing Doors

ForTraining Purposes Only ForTrair>ing Purpos.e< Only



### .A.

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

## Main Landing Gear Wing Doors
A. Ared stripe on the actuator rod insertis revealed whentherod is extended. B. The doorend ofthe actuator rod can be extended to hold the wing door outfrom the gearto provide access for wheel andbrake removal.

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

**~~~** IUll'lCE tOS!TlOIC)

ForTraining 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 GearWing Door. B. Supportupper end ofdoor andremovehinge boltsand hollowhingepins. NOTE: ObservetypeofbushingInstallation oftheForward Hinge (reference Fig. 401, sheet2), numberandpositionofwashers under nutsand boltheads. C. Forward hinge is shimmedwlth washersbetween hinge lugs toprovidefore and aftadjustmentof door. Care mustbetaken torecord location ofwashersto ensure correctassembly.

ForTraining Purposes Only ForTra1nmg Ptlrpose< Only

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

### Main Landing Gear Wing Doors • Removal and Installation (continued) D. Install replacementMain GearWing Door. E. Insertwasher's betweenlugs offorwardhingesto

**lot<~te** doorinfore andaft position to providea clearancebetweenlugs ofafthinge. F. Reference A.MM 32-iQ-11Main GearWing DoorInstallation (Figure 401, Sheet 2, Detail B} for possiblevariationsin configurationofforward hinge. Reference IPC 32.-10-0G-10 to determine the correcthingepartnumber.

ForTraining Purposes Only For Tralmng
**Purpo~e<** Only ..\olt,. •.**,"l:"'~to\o\UI""** r;lf.&",l.l'l!,.,..,lt**.A!llii~..2!!~**

## Main GearWing DoorAft Hinge G. Install replacementMain GearWing Door H. Insertwashersbetweenlugs offorward hingestolocate door infore and aft position toprovide a0.02inchmin. clearancebetweenlugs ofafthinge.

**.A!l!!!~..2!!~** Forward Hinge Bolt Head isto Be in Aft Position A.ttHinge Critical

**Dimen~lon** 0Jl2 inch Minimum Clearancu EachSide -:=!..,.

For Training Purposes Only ForTraming PurposesOnly



## Main Landing GearWing Doors
I. After making forward and afthinge adjustments, check for chafing between door and fairing

ForTraining 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 makingforward and afthinge adjustments, check for chafing between doorandfairing

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. Jackairplanefor gearretraction lAWAMM Chapter7. B. Pressurize hydraulicsystem and openwheelwell doors on affected gear. C. Install main wheel well doordown lockandremoveexternal groundlockfrom gear (AMM 32-00-11). D. Returnground doorrelease handle toupposition. E. Checklengthofactuating rodbetweencentersofattachment points tobe approximately 32 inches {See Figure 1 below). Figure 1

**~~·** INM fWD

## Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door
F. Remove end platefrom door lAWAMM 32.-12-11 {Flg. 401). G. Retractthelanding gear.

IIOE 

### '"'""



### ~~· INBD FWD ..



## Adjustment/Test ofMain Gear Wing Door {Continued) Ref. AMM32·12·11 {fig. 501) fl Measurevertical distanceinboardendofdoor is outoffairing withwingcontour. I. Ifdoorismorethan0.05inch aboveor0,20 belowwingcontour, adjustactuatingrod until door fairs within limits. NOTE: Onehalfturn ofactuatingrod endmoves end ofdoorapproximately 0.25 inch. ACTUAT!ON 

### '"'



## c;,., For Trainingd?urposes10n!y

## Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door

J. Ref. AMM 32-12-ll.lnstallend plateand adjusttofairwithbody contour byvarying thickness oflaminated shims installed betweenendplate brackets and door. NOTE: Whenevershimlaminations areremoved,coatexposed surfaces with hydraulicfluid resistantprimer.



## ·~..Q!!~ Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door

K. Ref. AMM 32-12-11. Install and adjustforward up stopbumper until wing door fairs within 0.06inchwithwingcontour.

**~~··.** lli!IO FWD

## Adjustment/Test of Main GearWing Door

L. Suspenda weight ofbetween 375to425 poundsfrom inboardendofdoorwith load equally distributedbetweenspars. M. Shortendooractuation rod until sagatforward Inboard cornerofdooris 0.15 +/· 0.05 inch.. CAlJTION: AMAXIMUM OF 16THREADS MAY BEEXPOSED AFTER ADJUSTING ROD END. N, Removeweightandextend landinggear. 0. Adjustrodendin actuationrod to dean inner surfaceofdoorfitting by0.02+0.00{-0.01inch Ref. AMM 32-12-11 (Fig. 501). P. lockdoor actuationrodadjustment.Tighten rodend check nut 100(}-1200 pound-inches.

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

### Adjustment/Test of Main Gear Wing Door Q. Removewheel well doorlock and operatedoorreleasehandletodose doors. Do notallowdoor releasehandleto snapintoupposition. WARNING: ENSURETHAT DOOR ACTION PATH IS ClEAR OF EQUIPMENT BEFORE CLOSING DOORS. RAPID AcriON OF DOORS MAY INJUREPERSONNELOR DAMAGE EQUIPMENT. R. Retractlanding gearandcheckclearancebetween safetystopsandbumper plate on outboard door. Add or remove shimsfrom under safety stops until bottomofendplatedearsbumperplateofoutboardwheelwell door by 0.05 inch.

DETAIL A ForTraining Purposes Only

...5 • _,pose,Only**·~!.!!~2!!!:rn** 

## Adjustment/Test of Main GearWing Door

S. Ref. AMM 32-12-11 Check edgetrim around peripheiYof door. Gap between edgeofdoorand adjacentstructureto bewithin 0.10 and 0.25 inch. NOTE: Gap betweenhingeline andflaptrackto bebetween0.18 and 0.35 inch. T. Ifitis necessaryto adjustdoorin a fore oraft directiontoprovide a clearance between afthinge

**lugs~** Install an extrawasherbetweenlugs atforward door hingewhilemaintaininga .020minimum clearancein the afthinge lugs lAW AMM Reference 32-12-11. Figure 401. With extra washer installedbehind forward lug, doormoves forward. Withwasherinstalledin front ofrearlug, doormovesaft. NOTE: Gap between hinge lineand flap trackto be between 0.18 and 0.35 inch. U. Perform a retraction cycle and check operation ofdoor.Checkthatlanding gearcontrol leveris in DN position. V. Lower airplaneand removejacks. ForTraining 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 ofthe Hinge Pin. • Reference the following informationto review the accepted procedures lAW myboeingfleet.com Component Overhaul Manual Product Standard Processes. • BAC 5018, page 34. • See thefollowing information for details.

ForTraining Purposes Only FoJ Tr•lning PurposesOnly 

### "**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 forthe aft hinge?

**~** A) 0.020 0 B) 0.030 () C) 0.040 0 D) 0.050 

# I ...sorrec\;Clickanywhere\b 

## .I [lncorre;cl:(;lic.kanywhere\o 

## I

·· • •·.··

**co~** Your ansv.:•.V•i • •• i • • ; •• ·••· .·. Youdidnotans\.;,er\his ; 

### I .· 

## < ··· ·•

**YO~ iTiUst:an:~VjettD_e** ,question

. ·

.. **_J)~fore** cortinuing .... forTroining

**Purpo•~•** Only



### What hinge gets shimmed to meetthe critical minimum clearance dimension in the aft hinge?

0 A) Main geardoor aft hinge 0 B) Aft hinge u C) Main gearfwd bearing

**~** D) Fwd hinge



# I Correct- Click anywhere to 

# I
con Your answer: 

### I Incorrect- Click anywhere to 

# I

You did not answerthis 

### I You must answerthe question 

# I

**s~b~-it**·---J

# r--C1ea_r_ ... -J before continuing ForTr•l"ing Purpo5esOnly 

### "

### What should be checked on a gear swing after the adjustment ofthe wing door aft hinge?
C!) A) Chafing ofaft hinge to fairing u B) Chafing offwd hinge to fairing 0 C) Main gear outbd tire chaffing against the wing 0 D) None ofthe above



## I. --·Correct- Click anywhere.to ·I 1- lncorr<ect- Click anywhere to I '
. con youranswer: ' .• . ._,_ • . .·. • Voi/didnotanswer this •_[ .- ·_ ' -._ • \ YoU_mUst,answertt)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 ofwashers during disassembly ofthe migwing doorforward hingeto 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 answerthis 

### I You must answer the question 

# r·. Sobm;; 

### ··-l

**~** Clear J before continuing Fnr T.-.inlng PurposesOnly 

### "With an extra washer installed behind theforward hinge lug ofthe MLG Wing Door, the MLG Wing Door moves __ . With the washer installed in

0 .!1 0 0 front ofthe 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<;reto 

# I \_JnFol-re9t..

**~_** c_n:C_k

**'anywh~r~**tO.
__ ,

.. ·'. ··. con

**~your** ahSWer: 

### >.

. ' ·,,__. 

## .·· ,.,..

., ,··········...·· 

### ,v

ou did not answer this 

### I , .. ·.·.· You rnustapswer_the

**que~tionl** 

# r

**S~b~ft** ..•...·. beforewnlinuln1J:
. . .• '
.. 

### ~CCI~~~ 

# J

Fm Tr:ainlng Pll'1'0>esOoly


# 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 ---- 

### "