### U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON,D. C. 

# RECEl\lED JUN 052015 

# HEARING DOCKET IN THEMATTEROF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0807 PAZAVIATION, INC. FAA CASE NO. 2011S0190272 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan

FAA'SNOTICE OFAMENDED COMPLAINT and 

### FAA'SRESPONSE TORESPONDENT'S AMENDEDMOTIONTODISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OFLAW Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order Setting Motion Conference and Deadlines for Supplemental Filings, dated April 23, 2015, the FAA files this Notice ofAmended Complaint and Responseto the Respondent's Amended Motionto Dismiss.
BACKGROUND Between June of 2009 and April of 2011, the Respondent performed maintenance, overhauled, and!m tested appwximately forty-eight aircraft parts. 1 

### (Exhibi:t-1). On onrbuutJune 

### 21, 2011, FAA Aviation Inspector Ernst Biamby inspected multiple work orders of the Respondent and as a result, determined the Respondent neither had, nor used, the required tools to perform the maintenance, overhaul, and/or testing referenced in the work orders. (Exhibit 2). Moreover, Respondent's employeeprovided a signedstatement that he did notproperly test an

1 One ofthese is parts is a Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, part number 65-44561-15, serial number 8356, as referenced inRespondent's workordernumberPAZ-25837.

### aircrafipart

### because ofa "lack oftooling."2 

### (Exhibit 3). The specifictesting equipment at issue is referenced in Boeing Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) Flight Spoiler Power Unit Control Assembly 27-60-41. (Exhibit 1) (Exhibit4). On or about June 23, 2011, theFAA issued a Letter ofInvestigation ("LOI'') to the Respondent, which notified the Respondent that is was under investigation for performing maintenance, overhaul, and/or testing to the forty-eight aircraft parts withoutusing therequired tools ortestingprocedures. (Exhibit I). OnJuly 8, 2011, the Respondent submitted aresponse to the LOI. On or about May 24, 2012, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty ("Notice"),3 

### and on April 18, 2013, the parties participated in an informal conference to discuss the allegations enumerated inthe Notice. At the infonnal conference, the Respondent indicated that it would submit additional information in support ofits defense that it had and used the required tools to maintain, overhaul, and/or test the forty-eight aircraft parts. Almost ayear later on June 20, 2014, the Respondent submitted said infonnation. (Exhibit 5). Shortlythereafter, the FAA issued a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty on September 24, 2014.4 

### On or about October 1, 2014, the Respondent filed arequest for ahearing. Six days later, on October7, 2014, the FAA filed its Complaint.

- - ------- - -On-January2-3-,-20-15,theRespondent-filed-its-MemQfandum-ofLaw-aFguingthatthe
-

-------- 

### FAA's Complaint should be dismissed based on the equitable doctrine oflaches, to which the Agencyresponded on February 10, 2015. On May 15, 2014, the Respondent filed its Amended Motionto Dismiss andMemorandum ofLaw.

2 The part referencedbythe Respondent's employee is same part referenced in in footnote 1. 3 TheNotice ofProposed Civil Penaltyreferences the same allegations and violations contained in the Complaint. 4 The Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty references the same allegations and violations contained in the Complaint. 

### 2

### AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. Section 13.214(b)(l), the FAA amends the Complaint filed on October 7, 2014. The FAAhereby removes allegations contained in subparagraphs 2(26), 2(28- 29) 2(34-48), and seeks a reduced civil penalty in that amount of $28,050. The applicable portions are amended to read as follows: 

### I. On September 24, 2014, Respondent, Paz Aviation, Inc., was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$44,880. On October 1, 2014, the Agency Attorney received a written request for a hearing from theRespondent. 

### II. 1. 

### At all times material herein the Respondent, times material llerein Paz Aviation, Inc. (hereafter "Paz"), was and is now the holder ofAir Agency Certificate No. XPZR185L (Repair Station), authorizing Paz to perform work on Boeing Flight Spoiler Assembly components. 2. On or about the following dates, Paz personnel performed maintenance and returned to service the following Boeing Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assemblies (hereafter "Assemblies"): Work OrderNo. 1) 29409 2) 29408

. ... . .. ........... ................ J)2940'i'
-...... -**~)**

## 2gsss 5) 28554 6) 28397 7) 28396 8) 28171 9) 28170 10) 28106 11) 27884 12) 27885 13) 27886 14) 27868 15) 27867 Maintenance TestingDates TEST April25,2011 TEST April25,2011

·--- 1"-EgT- - ......................**Ap>~12S,2011-** 

### 0VERHAUL (elate unknovm) OVERHAUL AprilS, 2011 OVERHAUL January26, 2011 OVERHAUL January26, 2011 OVERHAUL January 7, 2011 OVERHAUL January 7, 2011 OVERHAUL January7, 2011 Return to Service April27, 2011 April27, 2011 -· April-27-,2011 -· .... - -



## -AJffil. 7, 20II - ---



### April14, 2011 January 26,2011 January26, 2011 January 7, 2011 January 7, 2011 January 7, 2011 OVERHAUL OVERHAUL OVERHAUL OVERHAUL OVERHAUL November 11, 2010 November 11, 2010 November 11,2010 November 11,2010 November 11,2010 November 11, 2010 November 30,2010 November 30,2010 November 30, 2010 November 30,2010 3

### 16) 27866 OVERHAUL November 30, 2010 November 30, 2010 17) 27517 OVERHAUL October29, 2010 October 29, 2010 18) 27516 OVERHAUL October29, 2010 October 29, 2010 19) 27160 OVERHAUL September22,2010 September27, 2010 20) 27159 OVERHAUL September 17, 2010 September 20,2010 21) 27158 OVERHAUL September22, 2010 September 27, 2010 22) 27157 OVERHAUL October 15, 2010 October 15,2010 23) 27063 OVERHAUL October26,2010 October 26, 2010 24) 26477 OVERHAUL June 24, 2010 June 29, 2010 25) 26476 OVERHAUL (dateunlmown) June 29, 2010 20) 29143 OVERHAUL (dateunknewn) May 19,2010 27) 26027 OVERHAUL November22, 2010 November22, 2010 28) 2§909 RBI!AIR flqJfil12, 2010 lqJfil12, 2010 29) 2§908 REPAIR lqJfil12, 2010 i\pfill2, 2010 30) 25838 OVERHAUL May27, 2010 May27, 2010 31)25837 OVERHAUL (dateunlmown) May27,2010 32) 25792 OVERHAUL May4,2010 May27, 2010 33) 25791 OVERHAUL July28, 2010 July 30,2010 34) 23§90 o:vERHAYL M&Feh23, 2010 M&Feh 23, 2010 33) 23018 OVERHAYL IlehfU&f)' 24, 2010 IlehfU&f)' 24, 2010 38) 2301+ 0\'ERHl.YL Apfil 22, 2010 lqJfil30, 2010 31) 24939 O',l:gRHl,tJL fleeemlleF 9, 2010 JanuE!fj' 

### B,2010 38) 24933 OVERHAYL (date unknewn) i'!B'iemBef23, 2009 39) 24831 OVeRHAUL l'!evemseF 21, 2009 NevefllseF 18, 2009 40) 24839**OVERHl~L** 

### l'le'<'emBSf30, 2009 l'Je,,•emllef 18, 2009 41) 24833**0\l:gRH,A~L** 

### l'!evemllef30, 2009 l'!8'o'emBSf 18, 2009 42) 24834 Ol,l:gRHAYL l'!e,,•emlleF 30, 2009 l'!e'ieFBsef 18, 2009 43) 24801 Ol,LERHAYL (date unknewn) Janu&Fy 1, 2010 44) 2433§ 0\lBRHAYL OateseF 22, 2009 OeteseF 23, 2009 m••m mmmmmmm•••••••4!i) 24340 0\'ERHi\YL Nevemllef3, 2009 l'!evemlleF 4, 2009 48) 24013 OVERHltYL Septemllef :8, 2009 Sefltemllef23, 2009 41) 23893 0\l:gRHAYL (dateunlrnewn) Ju±y29' 2009 48) 23++3 OVER1JAYL July 30, 2009 July30' 2009 3. The above maintenance was required to be performed in accordance with the data and instructions containedinBoeing ComponentMaintenanceManual (CMM) section 27-60- 41. 4. Paz recorded some ofthe above referenced maintenance as "overhauled" in the required maintenancedocuments.

4 --- - ---- -------- ---------

### 5. However, the Assemblies were not properly overhauled in that Paz performed some required tests withtools that were notnamed in the applicable sections ofCMM 27-60-41 or approved as equivalentbythe Administrator. 6. ln addition, the Assemblies were not properly overhauled in that Paz failed entirely to perfonn othertests requiredbythe applicable sections ofCMM 27-60-41. 7. ln addition, at the time Pazperformedthe above-described maintenance and approved the Assemblies for return to service, Paz had not performed tests in accord with data contained in the applicable sections ofCMM 27-60-41 or other equivalent data approved bytheAdministrator. 8. In addition, Paz employees were unable to explain how tests were performed on Assembly 

### PIN 65-44561-15, SIN 8356, which Paz recorded as overhauled on May 27, 2010, tested on September 27,2010, and repaired on April27, 2011. 9. At the time Paz perfonned the above-described maintenance to the Assemblies, Paz did not have on hand all ofthe special technical data, equipment, and or facilities required to performthe abovemaintenance. 10. Paz also failed to follow its accepted Repair Station Manual (RSM) Section 5.3.1, which requires Paz to have all the tools necessary to performtherequired maintenance, to have the shop manager ensure that the equipment necessary was made available on the premises, and to verify the equipment, tools, and material needed for a particularjob by checkingthemanufacturer'smaintenancemanual or otherFAA-approvedtechnical data. 11. ln addition, Paz failed to follow RSM Section 5.3.3, which requires Paz to use equipment, material, and tools recommended by the manufacturer or equivalent equipment, materials, and tools, detennined to be equivalent by the Quality Control manager and documented on required Paz forms. 12. In addition, Paz failed to follow its Quality Control System, Quality Control Manual

... ...... - SectionlAl,in-thatJ.'.az failedte detect m cure the lack-efpmper-toels and-teelmieal ..··-· - - -· - 

### ·data, the designation ofitems-as overhauled when they had not been properlytested, the

lack of confom1ity to the requirements of Boeing CMM 27-60-41, and the improper return to service ofitems that were not repaired in accord with the requirements ofthe Administrator. Ill. 

### 13. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following sections ofthe Federal AviationRegulations: I) Section43.2(a)(2) in that no personmaydescribe in anyrequiredmaintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless it has been tested in accordance 5

### with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, whichhavebeen developed and documentedbythe holder ofthe type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under §21.305 ofthis chapter. 2) Section 43.13(a) in that each person perfonning maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness preparedbyits manufacturer, or othermethods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in 43.16. He shall use thetools, equipment, and test apparatus necessaryto assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industrypractices. Ifspecial equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipmentorapparatus orits equivalent acceptableto the Administrator. 3) Section 145.201(b) in that a certificated repair station may not maintain or alter any article for which it is not rated, and may not maintain or alter any article for which it is rated ifit requires special technical data, equipment, or facilities that are not availableto it. 4) Section l45.207(a) in

### that a certificated repair station mustprepare and follow arepair stationmanual acceptable to the FAA. 5) Section 145.211(b) in that repair station personnel must follow the quality control system when performing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations underthe repair station certificate and operation specifications. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a)-(d), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,100 $11,000 for each oftheviolations alleged.

·· ····· - - --Under-the-faets-an4£ircurnsffineesoHhis ease,-a-civilpenaltyof$

### 4 4,gg0**$28,0~0-is-apprepriatec** 

### FAA'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS 1. 49 U.S.C. §46301(d)(7)(C) DoesNotWarrantDismissal ofthe Amended Complaint The Respondent argues that the Complaint, in its entirety, should be dismissed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §4630l(d)(7)(C), which states "[e]xcept for good cause, a civil action involving a penaltyunderthis paragraphmaynotbeinitiatedlaterthan 2 years afterthe violation occurs." In 

### its brief, the Respondent interprets the statute to require that the FAA must file a complaint 

### no 

### 6

### more than two years after the date ofviolation. Because the FAA filed the Complaint in this matter more than two years after the violations occurred, the Respondent asserts the original Complaint, inits entirety, shouldbedismissed. The Respondent inconectly interprets 49 U.S.C. §4630l(d)(7)(C) to the extent that Respondent argues that the FAA must file a complaint 

### within two years ofthe date ofviolation. Rather, 49 U.S.C. §46301(d)(7)(C) requires that the FAAissue a notice ofproposedcivilpenalty 

### within two years ofthe date ofviolation. This statute, as well as 14 C.P.R. §13.208(d), 5 

### are known as the "stale complaint" rule. In the case of In the Matter of David E. Everson, FAA Order No. 2004-5, *1, 

### *2 (September 22, 2004), the Respondent moved to dismiss several ofthe FAA's allegations under the stale complaintrule because the FAA filed its notice of proposedcivilpenalty

### more thantwo years after the Respondent committed the violations. In her analysis, the FAA Administrator cited 49 U.S.C. §46301(d)(7)(C) (and 14 C.P.R. §13.208(d)) for operating as a statute of limitations which requires the FAA to issue a notice of proposed civilpenalty 

### no later than two years after the date ofviolation. Id. See 

### In the Matter ofRoyal Avionics Systems, Inc., FAA Order No. 2002-6, *1, *3 (April 16, 2002); In the Matter ofNicholas J. 

### Werle, FAA OrderNo.

- -9-+-20., 

## ·*h--"4 {May--23, 

### 199'7}- -Simi-larly,--In-the Mater-of-Van-Guard,--FAA-Doeket- No,- - - 

### CP01S00029, *1, *3, FN3, Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder referenced 49 U.S.C. §46301(d)(7)(C) as a two-year statute oflimitations which requires the FAA to issue a notice of proposed civilpenalty 

### no later than two years after the date ofviolation. ChiefJudge 5 14 C.F.R. §13.208(d) states: "Instead offiling an answer to the complaint, a respondent may move to dismiss the complaint, or thatpart ofthe complaint, alleging aviolation that occurred onor after August 2, 1990, and more than 2 years before an agency attorney issueda noticedof proposedcivilpenalty to the respondent. (I) An administrative lawjudge may not grant the motion and dismiss the complaint or part ofthe complaint ifthe administrative law judge finds that the agency has shown good cause for any delay inissuing the notice ofproposed civil penalty. (2) If the agency fails to show good cause for any delay, an administrative lawjudge may dismiss the complaint, or that part ofthe complaint, alleging a violation that occurred more than 2 years before an agency attorney issued the notice ofproposed civil penalty to the respondent" (emphasis added). 

### 7

### Yoder stated the statute codified 14 C.F.R. §13.208(d), and that pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.16(d),6 

### a civil penalty action is "initiated" when the FAA issues notice ofproposed civil penalty. Id. Becausethe violations alleged inthe Amended ComplainantoccUlTed withintwo years of the Agency issuing its Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty on May 24, 2012, the violations are not stale; as aresult, the Respondent'smotionis due to bedenied. 2. TheRespondent Cannot EstablishThe AffirmativeDefenseofLaches Because the Respondent is asserting the affitmative defense oflaches, the Respondent bears the burden ofproof. In the Matter ofJohn J. Carroll, FAA Order No. 90-21 (August 16, 1990). In

### orderto prevail on a laches affirmative defense, theRespondent must show that (1) the FAA inexcusably delayed in bringing the instant action against the Respondent and (2) that as a result ofthe delay, the Respondent is prejudicedinits defense ofthe action. 

### !d. Pursuant to the applicable statute oflimitations, the FAAhas five-years from the time the violations occurred to commence an action. 28 U.S.C. §2462. See In

### the Matter ofJohnJ. 

### Carroll. As to the first element, the FAA did not delay commencing the action inthis matter. The FAA issued the Respondent an LOI one month after the FAA became aware of the
to contain an aircraft part for which the Respondent maintained, overhauled, and/or tested without the proper tooling. As a result, the Respondent received both a timely and detailed notice ofthe FAA's allegations. (Exhibit 1). TheAdministratorhas held that "[a]lthough aletter ofinvestigation does not satisfy the limitation period set forth in49 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) or

6 Now 14 C.F.R. §13.16(1), which states: A civil penalty action is initiated by sending a notice of proposed civil penalty to the person charged with a violation or to the agent for services for the person nnder 49 U.S.C. 46103. (emphasis added). 

### 8

### m 14 C.F.R. §13.208(d), it does notify a respondent that preserving evidence may become necessary." In the Matter of Royal Avionics Systems, Inc., FAA Order No. 2002-6, at *3 (quoting In the Matter ofNicholas J. Werle, FAA Order No. 97-20, at *3). See 

### 55 Fed. Reg. 27548, 27556 (1990) ("[T]he notice provided in a letter ofinvestigation reduces the chance that the respondent is prejudiced by the delay, especially where legal enforcement action is initiated withintwo years.") Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 2462 imposes a five-year statute oflimitations. By virtue of the statute, the Respondent was placed on notice that the Administrator had five years from the date ofaviolation to file a complaint. TheAgency providedtimely and multiplenotifications to the Respondent. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has failed to show that the Agency inexcusablydelayedbringingthe instant action against the Respondent. With regard to.the second element, the Respondent has not shown that it has been prejudiced in its defense ofthe action. First, the Respondent fails to address the fact that its employee admittedthat theRespondentdidnothaveproper tooling. 

### (Exhibit 3). This admission negates the Respondent's allegationthat itis prejudicedinpresenting a defense inthis matter. Second, the Respondent asserts that its engineering consultant, Jack Batista, will testify

__

thaLhe._assistedin_creating_hlue.prints_fo.r.the.tes.ting. equipmenLrequired to. service the-parts_ _ referenced in the Complaint. The Respondent asserts that it expects Batista to testify that the privatelybuilt testing equipment was equivalent to that required by the manufacturer. However, the Respondent states it has been unable to locate Batista, and as result, is prejudiced m presentingits defense thatit had theproper equipmentto service the aircraft parts. To the contrary, the FAA submits that Batista's testimony is not dispositive to the issue about which he is expected to testify. The Respondent has not indicated why an independent, 9

### appropriately qualified, engmeer cannot opme that the Respondent's privately built testing equipmentis equivalentto that requiredbythe manufacturer. In the alternative, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent conducted a due-diligence search for the witness. Rather, the Respondent has offered only a simple allegation that Batista cannot be contacted. Because the Respondent has offered nothingmore, the Respondent has not shown that ithas beenprejudiced. Next, the Respondent asserts that it is prejudiced because Ledo Industrial Machine Shop ("Ledo") went out ofbusiness after the FAA issued the LOI to theRespondent. TheRespondent alleges that it shipped its privatelybuilt testing equipment to Ledo for the purpose ofseparating two components contained on one stand 

### to two components on two stands. 

### The Respondent asserts that Ledo (or an employee ofLedo) will testify about the work performed on the testing equipment. However, the Respondent claims that because Ledo is no longer in business, Ledo (or anemployee ofLedo)is unableto corroboratethe Respondent'sposition. First, the Respondent fails to state the period oftime that elapsed between the date the FAAissued its LOI and the date Ledo ceased operations. Thistimeline is importantto determine whetherthe Respondenthadthe opportunityto inquire withLedo priorto the company going out

..... oLbusiness,_.and_what,_ _iLany,.inquiLytheRespondenLconducte<LSecond,-the.RespondenLhas---- not submitted any evidence to show that the Respondent diligently acted to preserve evidence (i.e., a timely inquiry of and/or search for Ledo employees). Finally, the anticipated testimony from a Ledo employee will be cumulative; the Respondent, via its employees, is in apositionto providethe testimony expected ofLedo employees. Without more, the Respondent is unable to substantiate that it has beenprejudiced. As a result, the Respondent has not satisfied its burden. See 

### In the Matter of John J. 

### Carroll 10

### ("Respondenthas not alleged the type ofprejudicethathas beenheldto support a laches defense: that the delay resulted in a loss of evidence or witnesses supporting his position, or that he changedhis positionina waythat would nothave occurredbyfor the delay.") Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has failed establish that dismissal of the Amended Complaint is warranted under 49 U.S.C. §46301(d)(7)(C). Similarly, the Respondent has failed to establish an affinnative defense oflaches, inthatthe Respondent has not shownthat (I) 

### the FAA inexcusably delayed inbringing the instant action against the Respondent and that (2) the Respondent suffered actual prejudice as a result. Therefore, the Respondent's motion to dismiss the Complaintmustbe denied. Respectively submittedthis 

# 1""', day

# of--'¢'-~-'"""""--'-'""'--1'----~~, 2015.
Counsel for Complainant

11

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### Ihereby certifythat the foregoing FAA'sNotice ofAmended Complaint and FAA's Response to Respondent's Amended Motionto Dismiss was sent to the following viaFederal Express: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 TheHonorableJ.E. Sullivan AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 DavidM. McDonald, Esq. McDonald & 

### McDonald Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 669122-9428 Miami, FL 33135-2321 Telephone: (305) 643-5313 Facsimile: (305) 643-4990

____________.Officeof.the.RegionaLCounseL _

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

### Dated (Express Mail only)

12U.S. Oepartmen! of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### JUN 2 3

## 2011 South Florida Flight Standards District Office 19

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT E!R Number20JJSOJ90272 Mr Juy Eugene Allen Accountable Manager PAZ Aviation. Inc. 7455 West 2"" Court Hialeah, Florida 33014 Dear Mr Allen: 2895 SW 1451h Avenue, Su11e 120 M1ramar. Flor1da 33027

This letter is to inf(Jrm you we are investigating an incident that involve un article overhauled by Paz Aviatio.n, Inc. (PAZ), a 14 CFR part 145 Repair Station certilicatc #XPZRJ851, which failed during operation. The subject Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, PIN 65-44561-15, SIN 8356, had the following maintenance pcrrormcd by PAZ • Work Order PAZ-25837, Overhauled May27, 2010. • Work Order PAZ-27429, Tested September 27,2010. • Work Order PA/-29145, Repairerl April 27, 2011. On June 20, 20I I, this office VISited PAZ, and interviewed PAZ management and employees. Our interview with Mr. Antonio Yanez, the technician who pcrrorrned

___maLll_Len.anc_e __

**mLthc..s.uhj.e.c.Lactide.,..Le\iealed-hedid.nGl-m;e-the-re~+l-i-r<:>EI--Ie8-1-s-m--lest-** --------------J2Iill'ed

### urcs.l!JlcL.Inainkna.nrc and aIso_.sJated''lhe ""it **wa~-&WEJ---J-()~f-&F-tack---of--------------­** tooling". Further investigation revealed PAZ was unable to provide the required Tools and Equipment or equivalency oftools used to return this article to service. 

### PAZ Work Order log shows the following listed Work Orders could also be atTcctcd. I -- -------:--------··--- Work Order Date I 29409 04120120II 

# "'2 29408
- f--o4/20120-JJ

3 29407 04/20120I I 

## r-- - ------ ----·



## ~ 28555 01/2412011

5 28554 01/24/2011

----- ------ - DescriEtion Flight Spoiler Power Con

------·- Assembly " trol Unit Part



### Nu111_be~r Seri;;i/i 65-44561-15 

# I 5307

--- - ------- 65-4456l:l_5_ 1- 

### 4469 " " "

--- 65-44561-1

# s 4391



### -~~-l---::-:-:--c-::- 8I69 65-44561-15 3764

**~** GOVERNMENT 

# i EXHIBIT M 

## /1**~~-----~----~-----------~------** 6 28397 

### _]__ 28396

8 28171 9 28170 " " " 

### "

--- 65-44561-15 65-44561-15 65-44561-15 65-44561-15



### ~_'_':'_(__"::':'_~--J-.-~:c:..::~"'-'--"---4-------------- -!----"6):'_-



### -_.4~~01_-15 10 28106 " II 12 13 !----'-=---

14 

### ,___12_ -

**~--**

17 18 19 27884 27885 27886 27868 ---f---'--"-=.:::.:=-"-'-'::.....t----- --------l----"6 ).__-



### -cj45



### 61~J 5 65-44561-15 ,,

- "

" ---· --- 65-4451> 1-15 65-44561-15 27867 65-44561-15

___ _"::_'_"_"'_-+-_::_:__=.::__':',_:_:___ --------- ---- ---------1-- ---- 27866 27517 **:.=:.:c::.~_::__+-----** ------- 27516 27160

**-=:_:__:_~_'_"-1-------------** ----- -- 65-445(11-15

- -- ·--- 65-44561-15 65-44561-14 65-44561-15

-- ·-- -- -- 2

-- - IOS57 4421 

### 40SX 337,1/\li

10592 7452 9717 10617 5412 10685 (, IO!J 

### 4444 4617 'J717 745? _::-: _ 

### __j_____,::_Cc_"-'---+-.::o:.::s~ll.:.7/~2-"o'-'l o::.....t------------"------- GS-44561-15 

## I 10617 20 27159 21 27158 

## --=--- 65-44.\o 1-15 08/17/201Q _______ ·_·



### --~-=-==:-:-=--~6S-44S61-15 j_ 16So 22 !7157

-- 23 27063 08/09/20to .. 65-445ol-15' 7099

**-j-::_o_~~_:::__+------** -------- ---- +-::_::___:__:_:__::_:____:_c:_ 

### i



### ~ 26477 06/04/2010 " 65-44561-14 

### !

**-~-----------** -- ll]6J\ 24(1, 4635 9847 06/03/201 0

**-\-.::""~~'_':'___j____** ----------- 25 26476

- 04/26/2010

__ .::__':''__'::''----+-_::__:_:=-=-=-=--+---------- ----

**I-=-.__l---~"-'=-'--e-()_4/1** 51201

## o **~-~!J__** 26143

27 26027 65-445(, 1-15 (,5-44561-15 65-44561-15 

## 2_8_ 25909

-- ------ 29 25908 65-44561-15 475'J 

### --------------------+--' 03/31/2010 03/3 1/20_._10"----4--------·' ____ _ 30 2583 8 9_31_._2_"51_._2-"0"1 0='----+_______ ..___ _ 

# e-21 25837 03/25/2010 

### +------ _·_'_-----

32 ___ 25792____ 03119/2010 

## f--------------"---- 33 25791 031.__19:-_12"_'0_'1':'0--1------ --

**~** -- ----- __cl_4_ 25560 ()_2117/20 10 -----------

35 25018 12:::1_:c_07:_:_1_::c20::c0:_:-9---1--------"- ------

**~** 

# )so 17 12/07/2009 -------·



### -------J-7-----------2-4-9-5-B--------

**---l---~-/-1:)-J-2-Q.G-9---** 

### ------------------------------------ -------- ----------------- -------f--'--'-'-==:=:'___f---- --------------- ----------- --- :J4

**l----;M9--'8----+---I--I~±IIj_+±5,1j_ 2:1J:Ol)J09q===:=**  

### ----- ----

_ _:_ --- ------- - 39 2 4 857 I_.I, 1_:_1"'3/c:2-;-00"-c9'-+-------"----___ 4252'!6 7485 835(1 I I 1 0 I 6.111 0357 5800 5608 &§-44-§6-1--1--5----- -c'i-6-3:'--- --

----- ----·

**-6~44-56** - - 9-700+-

65-44561-15 

### 44n _4_Q __ **2~~56.** IIit1gO_O_')__________ '_'_ 

### -+--'6"'-5:_-4'--'4561_:_1 5_ 3 X

93,\ ll 41 24855 11/13/2009 " 

# 1---1----- - - __:__:_:__:_::_:_:c_:_::_-"---1-------- 142 24854 11/13/2009

**-·------~---+**



### [43~f- 

## ___?_'!§01 11/09/2009-
- ______ .. ______ _ ' 44 24555 10/06/2009

**~~~--~--~~~--~~--------** : 45 24340 09/0l/2009 I



### 2407~ **07J30/2QQ~-l----** 

# 1

.. 73893 07/06/2009



# ~--- -_-



# -~3::.:7_7:::_3_ __L_0'-'6'-/16/2 __0::_0::__9:___]_ ______ ·'__ . ______ 65-44561-15 45(,7 --------· 

### 7X56 3077/1 3156!\ 6X71 1147-l 5953

**g)]~**_, 

### lllis action may be in violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations; this leiter is to inrnrrn you that this matter is under investigation by the Federal Aviation Admimstration. We wish to otTer you an opportunity to present any evidence or statement you may care to make concerning this matter. The evidence or statements should be in surticient detail and contain all pertinent facts and any extenuating or mitigating. circumstances, v1hich you believe, may. have a bearing on this matter. I

## ryou desire to do either ofthese, the actions should be accomplished within ten (I 0) class following receipt ofthis letter. Any discussion or written statement wJII be given consideration in the tinaIconclusion ofour investigation. However. ir we do not hear \rom you within the specified time, our report will be processed without the bcnctit oryour statemenl. 

### Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (954) 641-6135 

### Sincerely,

# ~~~-/F ;¢fnst ll"tmby Jr. /Principal r-..1aintcnance Inspector

### SOUTH FLORIDA FLIGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFFICE 19 Ernst BiambyJr. ·South Florida Miami Flight Standards District Office 19 August 26, 20 II INSPECTOR STATEMENT On June 20, 2011, Iinvestigated a complaint received via email with attachments, dated June 15,2011, against Paz Aviation, Inc, from ST Aerospace Solutions (Europe). The complaint alleges that Paz Aviation, Inc. (PAZ) a 14 CFRpart 145 Repair Station certificate #XPZRI85L, with Radio Class,1,2,3 and Limited Accessory, Non-Destructive Ratings performed maintenance on a Flight Spoiler PowerControl Unit Assembly, (PCU), PIN 65-44561-15, SIN 8356, which failed during a test flight ofan SAS, 737- 400, as stated in the Complaint email. Listed below are the details ofthe work orders: l. Overhauled under Work Order# PAZ-25837, dated May 27,2010. 2. Tested under Work Order# PAZ-27429, dated September27,2010. 3. Repaired under Work Order# PAZ-29345, dated April27, 2011. I interviewed PAZ Quality Control Manager Mr. Juan Zamora, Shop Manager Mr. Humberto Zamora and Mechanic Mr. Antonio Yanez, who performed maintenance on the PCU, and they all confirmed that the PCU was tested prior to retum to service. Following this interview PAZ employees could not explain why the PCU failed. I ·-----·---·--··--------requeste<l--to-se&-the-e<fu·iJlme-nt-M-fc-¥ane-z-used-to-test-the-PE-l:I-:-Mr-Y-an·e-z--sho-weaTITa·----·----- -·-·----·----- roll-aroum!-<:art located-BR-the shofl floor eolltairung (2) fixtwes/tools "!ric!I he

## icremmea--·----·------- as the tools used to test the PCU. These tools are not equivalent to those listed in the Boeing Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) ATA 27-60-41, page 101, 110-113, 121-123, 126. Ithen requested that PAZ provide the tools, test equipment and equivalent substitute as required by the CMM. The Shop Manager Mr. Humberto Zamora could not provideany documents to support tooling equivalency. I expressed to PAZ that my investigation is to determine what caused this PCU to fail, and ifthey would provide factual information it would save a lot oftime investigating this matter. After hearing my comment Mr. Yanez revealed be did not use the required tools or test procedures after maintenance and he stated "the unit was not tested 100% due to the lack ofsome tools" and he provided a statement. Mr. Juan Zamora attempted to explain that the fixture used for testing this PCU was not in the shop because it was being modified, which is contrary to Mr. Yanez's account ofhow the unit was tested.



### ~ GOVERNMENT 

# i EXHIBIT 

# L_ __dMy review ofPAZ equivalency file #374, for the PCU, which was provided by Mr. Humberto Zamora, did not contain any equivalency orevidence ofthe required tools was ever obtained by PAZ. I asked Mr. HumbertoZamora, how this article was returned to service without being properly tested? His response was that "it was an oversight on my part". None ofthe employees interviewed could explain how this article was tested. I collected copies ofWork Order# PAZ-25837, Work Order# PAZ-27429, and Work Order# PAZ-29345. I informed PAZ management that l would return the next day to copy Work Orders for previous PCU, maintained by PAZ On June 21,2011, l returned to PAZ, this time in addition to the above mentioned managementpersonnel present wasPAZ Accountable ManagerMr. Jay Allen and Consultant Mr. Jack Batista, a proposed future employee who will be handling quality control issues. After briefing Mr. Allen ofmy findings I requested scanned copies ofthe (48) affected Work Orders listed below.

- :---:----- ------ --- ---·· ----- ---- - ------ 

## ,---, Work Order Date Description___ ___ Part Numberr--"enal # 

# --,

I 29409 04120120 I I Flight SpoilerPower Control Uni! 65-44561-15 5307 

## 2 - Asse!llbly

- 29408 04/20/2011 " 

# .. 4469 3 29407 04/20/2011 

# .. .. 4391 4 28555 01/24/2011 ,, " 8169

--- 5 28554 01/24/2011 

# .. .. 3764

- 6 28397 01111/2011 " " 10857

- 7 28396 0111112011 " " 4421 -----· 8 28171 12/07/2010 

# .. " 4088 9 28170 12/07/2010 " " 3374AB 10 28106 12/01120I0 ,, f--- " 10592 ------- - - 1 1 27884 11120/2010 " " 7452 12 27885 11120/2010 

# .. " 9717

- 13 27886 1111112010 10617

----- 14 27868 11/02/2010 " " 5432

- 15 27867 11/02/2010 " " 10685

- - 

## -r-o-

## r-- 278o6 - --- 

## --nroz12m

## o-- ,, -- " 6106 

## n-r- 

## nsn 0972972010
- ,-, " 4444

·- 18 27516 09/29/2010 " " 4617

-- - ·-----f-----,-,--- 19 27160 08117/2010 " 9717
------ ---- --·-,-, -- -- 20 27159 08/17/2010 " 7452 

## -=--- 27158 08117/2010 ---- 

### ··:-,------- C--- ..----- 21 10617 22 27157 08117/2010 " " 1680 23 27063 08109120I0 " " 7099

- 24 26477 06/04/2010 " " 3136A

-- **·~-----------** ------

### ---,,-- 25 26476 06/03/2010 " 2465

------- ----··· 1------- 26 26143 04/26/20I0 " 4635
-------- -- -- -- -- 27 26027 04/15/2010 " " 9847 -- - **------~-----··** - 1--- 28 25909 03/31/20I0 " 

### .. 4759 29 25908 03/31/2010 " ,, 425296

-- 2- 30 25838 03125120I0 " " 31 25837 03/25/2010 " " 32 25792 03/19/20I0 " " 33 25791 03/19/20I0 " " 34 25560 02/17/2010 ,, " 35 25018 12/07/2009 " "

- 36 25017 12/07/2009 37 24956 1112512009 " " 38 24955 11/25/2009 ,, " 39 24857 11/13/2009 " " 40 24856 II/13/2009 " "
·--· 41 24855 11/13/2009 ,, "

---- -- 42 24854 Ill13/2009 " " 43 24801 II/09/2009 " "

------ 44 24555 I0/06/2009 " "

·-- 45 24340 0910112009 " "
- 46 24075 07/30/2009 " " '--'--.
..



### ~- 23893 07/06/2009 " "

--- ---· ·------ .-·. ·--··- --,-.--- 48 23773 0611612009 "

- -- ·-- - ···----·-- **-~---------** While waiting for the digitally scanned copies ofthe above listed atlected work orders to be completed, I returned to the shop tloor for further evaluation ofthe tools Iobserved on June 20, 2011. Accompanied by PAZ management to the shop tloor, I noticed a new Actuator Test Stand and aTest Fixture which were not in the facility on the previous day June 20, 2011. Mr Batista proceeded to explain that these Test Stands werejust returned from being modified. My response to Mr. Batista's explanation, was that Mr Yanez did not indicate to us that these tools existed and were available when we requested to see the equipment he used to test the PCU. At that time, Mr. Allen became adversarial and accused me ofthreatening Mr Yanez. Ipromptly intem1pted him and infanned him that no one was threatened and that Mr. Yanez was interviewed m the presence ofPAZ Management and for him make an untrue accusation is unacceptable. PAZ management team Mr. Juan and Mr Humberto Zamora reiterated to Mr. Allen that Mr Yanez was not 7485 8356 1110I 6313 0357 5800 5608 5632 97084 4423 3893AB

4567 7856 3077A 3156A 6871 11474



### -59~~ 8532

threatened. Mr. Allen attempted to substantiate that the new tools were pre\'IOusly_c>\V_n_e_d _________ **------------aiiCfusea5fVA:Z,-Ilyprovldmfali-ilivoice-ii437:246:-daieJ6672oi26TI:r~~)m** Ledo _______ _ -----------TnaustnafMachmeS!iOjJ!OfThe-amouniofNoo.oo;-whichshows thatthis-testS!a;:;d--- was newly manufactured. Ithen informed Mr Allen that there is no evidence that PAZ everowned these tools, since review ofthe equivalency file #374. does not contain any equivalency ofany ofthe required tools. I collected the scanned copies ofthe affected work orders and left the facility. On June 22,2011, Ireceived an email from Mr. Juan Zamora to ST Aerospace Solution (Europe), requesting the subject PCU, be returned for functional test. On June 23, 201 L Isent a letter ofInvestigation to PAZ.

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

·- Descnfltion Manufacturer 

### PIN I Boemg Main Gear Actuator



### ~5-17830 - 2

**-~lflL_**___1-----

**-~Control** Valve_AssemtJ!y__

- 

## -- 65-22958 3 Boeing ___

### 1-------- Flap Transmission

**~-** 65-26613 --;--,---- ---

4 Boeing _ ___ SpoilerPowerControl 65CI6300

-- -- 5 Pratt Whitney Pressure Bleed Valve 658385
-·- -- 6 Boeing Reservoir Assembly 5936986 ·--· Further evaluatiOn ofopen in-process Work Orders listed below, did not have all the required tools, equivalency, self-evaluation and supporting documents. --

--

Work Order Dated Manufacturer Description PIN 

### SIN __ 21234 05/06/3008 Honeywell TurbineAxial Vane 801240-4 071884-23 29990 06122!20II Eaton AJC Motor/Pump_ 861556 MX381529 I observed on the shop tloor the new Actuator Stand previously seen on June 20,2011, except now it is tagged "Do not use- Not complete" confinning that this umt was newly purchased. I also observed a PCU Test Fixture with uncalibrated Dial Indicators bemg fabricated which also confllTIIS PAZ did not have this tool for testing ofprevious PCU's that were returned to service On July 12, 2011, I sent a letter infom1ing PAZ, that effective July 8, 2011, prior to returning any articles to service, PAZ must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and comply With all the requirements of 14 CFR Part 145.215, by revising and resubmit an acceptable Capability List. On July 15,2011, we received a telephone call from Mr. Batista, confim1ing receipt our letterdated July 12, 2011. He informed us that PAZ would comply with our letter and that it would take approximately 2 weeks to be in compliance. On July 22,20II, I performed a follow-up inspection ofPAZ, for evaluation oftheir progress with the selfevaluation ofthe articles listed on their capabdities list PAZ was in the process ofreevaluating all articles. PAZ provided a folder #374, contaming self


### 4evaluationdocuments for the PCU. We requested a test demonstration for the PCU, PAZ at this time could not perform this test due to Jack oftooling (being modified). Paz infonned us that they have not returned any articles to servrce. The CPU was returned to PAZ from ST Aerospace Solution (Europe) and we observed the shipping container was opened. We questioned why was it open° PAZ responded that is how 

### it was sent. On August I, 2011, I visited PAZ, to perfonn an evaluation ofdocuments t'or equivalency and selfevaluation for the Flight SpaderPower Control assembly P.N65- 44561-J 5 PAZ could not provide the supporting documents for tools equivalency evaluation. On August 25, 2011, PAZ, management visited the FSDO, and requested that we review the prelimmary equivalency documents for Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly. 

### PIN 65-44561-15. We had no objection to the equivalency documents. PAZ requested that we come the facility on August 26, 20I I, at which time all documents, test equipment and testing ofthe PCU, would be done. On August 25, 2011, I retumed a telephone call to the Regional Specialist responsible for this case. We discussed ofthe case and the following was requested: I. Insert as an lOP PAZ's Repair Station Manual, policies and procedures, sectiun. for Tools Equivalency. • Provide a signed Inspector Statement. • FurtherExplain Pictures lOP# 6, 14, 21, 22. • Inspector Statement from InspectorLouis Arrazola. • Revise and resubmit the Statement ofcase with all additiOnal lOP's Insert at the end. On August 26,2011, we received a telephone message from Mr. Batislil, cancelling our inspection due to PAZ, not being ready for our inspection.

________ _Qp_Augllit.JUOlL**lhis_nffi=t>erforrned_a_fu)<>W4lf>-~~f-tet>l-ettmvalency-fur-** -- - ----- - -- Flight SpoilerPower Control Unit Assy, PIN 65-44561. We rC\'Iewed the equi\'alency documents in Book 374, and they were lound acceptable. PAZ satrsfactorily tested a PowerControl unit. As a result this office will accept PAZ submitted Capabrlity Lrst Revision 16, dated August 30, 2011.

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

## Ernst Ernst Biamby Jr. Aviation Safety Inspector

6

### I Antonio Yanez

An · viati n, Inc. iation, Inc



### 8]56 W/0 27429, 29345 and 

### 25837 Flight Spoiler test the unit I00% for 

### lack ofsome 

### tooling

## ~GOVER.NMENT**~** 

### EXHIBIT 

# I 365-44561, 65-49580

1. Testing A Tools/Equipment rp_aDEfNG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION
NOTE: Equivalent substttutes may be used

Reference COM-5349

SPL-5346 SPL-5435 SPL-5459 SPL-6874 SPL-11814 STD-381 STD-382 STD-1238 STD-2604 STD-3761 STD-3913 STD-4766 STD-8746

__ _ _ _:3TQc.11l5L STD-11848 STD-11849 Descri t1on X-Y Recorder/Plotter (Pan #: 925E. Supplter 60795) (Pan # XY530T. Supplter 72264) (Opt Part # 70458, Supplter 28480) (Opt Pan # 7090A. Supplter 28480) Flow meter - 0-2 gpm (Part# 410DME-3R. Supplier 81205) Test Equipment- Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit (Part# F80224-79. Supplier 81205) (Opt Part# F80224-60. Supplier 81205) Position Transducer (Part#: SS-101. Supplter 00288) Gage - Pressure, DiHerential Port Assembly- Flight Spoiler Control Unit (F80224--67 is included in F80224-79) (Pan#: F80224-67. Suppl1er 81205) Gauge- HydrauliC Pressure. 0 to 6000 ps1 (41369 kPa) Gauge- HydrauliC Pressure. 3000 ps1 (20. 684 kPa) Indicator - Dial Gauge. Hydraulic Pressure. 0 to 50 ps1 (0 to 344 kPa) G;wge - Hydraul1c Pressure. 0 to 3000 ps1 (0 to 20.684 kra) Test Stand- Hydtaultc. 0 to 5500 pSI (0 to 37921 kPa), ps1 Increments Scale- Spnng, 0 to 50 lbs (0 to 222 N)

____G_raduated**B_ea_ke_r~_;Jj)Q(;_C:**

_______**Gage~El~.2DOD.cclnw;_**..________________ _ Dnp Tube- Hydraulic Flow Transducer- Hydraulic. 0 to 2 gpm B. Consumable Materials NOTE: Equivalent substitutes may be used

Reference Description 050122 Flutd- HydrauliC. Skydrol

BOEING Pf10PRIE1AflY**Cop~11Qhl'** UnputliiOh<e<J War). See Idle Specification BMSJ-11. Type IV or Type V 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION**~** 

### GOVERNMENT 

# j EXHIBIT 

### A_ Page 101 Jul 01/201065-44561' 65-49580

### ~HOEING' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

CYLINDER lCRJ

TEST MANIFOLD FB0224- 6 ---- RETURN (A) IHIDDEN)

Flow Curve Test Figure 103 EXTEND TEST PORT UNIT**197527~** S00003S636S_V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 110 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETA.AY Copyright i" Uflpublishe<J l"iork See t'\le page lor**dela•l~**65-44561' 65-49580 

### ?:1--HDEINC' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATOR HOLD ARM F80224--4**~**

# ",

Pos1tional Accuracy Test Figure 104 FIXTURE F80224-60 PROTRACTOR ASSY

1975278S0000356356 V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page111 Jul 01/201065-44561' 65-49580 (/l_HDE/NC' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATOR HOLD ARM
DIAL INDICATOR**GLAMPASSY~**

Output Resolution Check Figure 105 PROTRACTOR 

# ;J**197~28dS000035636/** Vl 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAUL1 ISOLATION Page 112 Jul 011201065-44561' 65-49580

POWER TENSION CYLINDER 

# j ({1_HOE/'NLr COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

DIAL INDICATOR & ROO POWER CONTROL UNIT PROTRACTOR ASSY

60

1975296 50000356368 V1 Hold-Down Check Valve Leakage, Dynam1c Seal/Load, P1slon Stroke Test F1gure 106 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 113 Jul 01/20106544561' 65-49580

THREE WIRE LEADS FROM**PO~IT!ON** TRANSDUCER TO X-Y RECORDER 

### rp._ooE/NG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

CYLINDER RETRACT ICR) CYLINDER EXTEND ICE) IAI 150796-018 65-44061

TEST FIXTURE TX150796

197531550000356370 V1 Check Valve, Flow Control Valve Test F1gure 108 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 121 Jut 01/201065-44561' 65-49580 (j).-HDEIN&' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SETTING AND CHECK lNG fiXTUI<E, TX 1.50821 --

Rod End Adjustment Figure 109 1975325S0000356371 V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page t22 BOEING PROPRIETARY**Copr"\)~11** ,- Unpubl,she<J Work See**~lie po;;~**  lor dela,rs Jul 011201065-44561, 65-49580 

### y;l_DDE/N&' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATED SPOILER PANEL

LINEAR OUTPUT TRANSDUCER TXI50804-J (MOUNTED ON ACTUATOR FIXTURES)

POWER CONTROL UNIT. 6S.44561
LINEAR INPUT POSITION TRANSDUCER, TX150804-2 ROTARY OUTPUT TRANSDUCER MOUNTED ON SUPPORT BRACKET !NOT ON NEWE A FIXTURES) POSITIONAL ACCURACY CHECK FIXTURE, TX150B04

Pos111onal Accuracy/Output Resolullon Check Figure 110 -TEST INPUT

1975332 SOOU0356J:'2 V 1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 123 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copynghl {Unpublished Work- Se<> t.tle**p~ge** lor deia•l3 Jut 011201065-44561, 65-49580 

### rt1-DDEhVG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

_..

__ LOADING AND CYCLING FIXTURE, TXI50820

1975J92S0000355375 V1 Hold-Down Check Valve Leakage, Dynamtc Seal/Load, Ptslon Stroke Test Ftgure 113 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 126 Jut 01/2010DAVID C. McDONAL0(1897 1971) DAVID McDONALD

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

Established 1927 I393 SW First Street Suite 200 Miami, Florida JJ 135-2321
TeLEPHONE (305) 643-5313 fACSIMILE (305) 643-4990 dmJ!GJ ..H_lcdonaldaJ!orne}_;i_f:.Q!I!
June 20, 2014 

# 0

DAVID M McOONALD• PATRICK G McDONALD • Board Certif1ed In AvLatJOn La\\

Vra fax 404 305-5223

and Email: William.Vines@faa gov

Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty Case No. 2011SOI90272 Our File No. 12-138 Dear Mr. Vines: My apologies for not getting this to you sooner. Attached is the work order showing the equipment was in the shop during the site visit and photos ofil back in the shop. --------------Please call me to discuss ifyou have anJ'_g_l]_e,;;ti.onL _________

- -------------------------------- Best regards, Sincerely. McDONALD & McDONALD

DMMmml Attachments as stated 's/ 

### DavidM McDonald David M. McDonald


### § GOVERNMENT 

# I EXHIBIT 

# a 

# r: l? f 

## Ci I\TlJ JUN ; 3 ,, : (-- '\ ,\ L; J :--i )l r ); ' '' r:'\) **~ ~AJ.**  A It lA I,..._...., lrt'-, 437246 To LEDO INDUSTRIAL MACHINE SHOf 7600 W. lOTH CT HIALEAH GARDENS, FL 33018 Memo J **~F>\2** ""'CH0C'

Dale Arnoun:

5,,10..

I .,.,., **~**

/ INVOICE
LJ37211S **~~~----:-----~lsHiiiT~--t-,**

\-. -:---------.:----

'l **:'~**
I F\l 1-'\(lt\tl **tS~u:.V**

\/i (\l lirl iJ.f'l 1 '( ·JL, N'l _\)__,·c:._c!>cFt;:d

' **b~=,-,;;;,-,__::__:::___::::_~::.__-=----;;c--:---:----;--1rci¥""<i""W~;-"-----"'---'==---:=t-----t'--**

·--- -- -- Cil'Y, ST

0?- ''t CUSTOMER ORDER NO \SOLD BY !TERMS

- IF-08 \OAT[ \ 0 "' **~** ::; --, ,; I I OPI.OEPI.ED IHI,.ED OOCRIPTIOH

'PRICE UHil ,t.tr.lOUIO [ C u·{'"o'\ '?-\uciQ C' \H.:: -§-1\N_i:.() ____
_ 1---

I **"\\~** \) ffi )'\ I \ '--- (; - -1-f----- -------

- ----

- **~~-** _=J

I

, **-----~~=-** --- 1,

,

I ----

'!1, **_,____I_-=_[~ ~=-=---~**  i ------------------ilj

I,

1 I I

I

-- .h,
I

II

'
I
I

I I

**·~-**
__

li I

-

I I **~-__::-T** ---- \ '.j

' '1t-

ii -1-- --is-. 2.. 0 -0.-<J

t

c: --=-=-

--

'·'

·, --

i!
: .. **~-T~~n~**