U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . ' · OFFICE OF JIEARINCS , ... : .. 

WASHINGTON; D .. c.: 

FEB 1 8 2015 

'-' • ··' •; , I NG DOCKET 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKE]'.NQ. F AA~2014-0807 

PAZ AVIATION, INC. FAACA;lENO. 20l1S0190272 

Respondent ··: f 

Judg<; J.E. Sullivan·. 

FAA'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order Adopting Proposed Briefing Schedule and Setting 

Motion Conference, dated December 23,2014, the FAA files this response to the Complainant's 

motion to dismiss. The Agency requests that this Court deny the Complainant's motion based on 

the information contained herein. 

Procedural History I Facts 

Between June of 2009 and April of 2011, the Respondent performed maintenance, 

overhauled, and/or tested approximately forty-eight aircraft parts 1 (Exhibit 1 ). On or about June 

21, 20 11, 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 employee provided a signed statement that he did not properly test an 

aircraft part because of a "lack of tooling. "

2 (Exhibit, 3). The specific testing ~quipment at issue 

is referenced in Boeing Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) Flight Spoiler Power Unit 

1 One of these is parts is a Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, part number 65-44561-15, serial number 

8356, as referenced iu Respondent's work order mimber PAZ-25837. 2 The part referenced by the Respondent's e~Tlployee is Same part referenced in in footnote 1. 
Control Assembly 27-60-41. (Exhibit 1) (Exhibit 4). On or about June 23,2011, the FAA issued 

a Letter of Investigation ("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 without using the required tools or testing procedures. (Exhibit 1). On July 8, 2011, 

the Respondent submitted a response to the LOI. 

On or about May 24, 2012, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

("Notice"),3 and on April18, 2013, the parties participated in an informal conference to discuss 

the allegations enumerated in the Notice. At the informal conference, the Respondent indicated 

that it would submit additional information in support of its defense that it had and used the 

required tools to maintain, overhaul, and/or test the forty-eight aircraft parts. Almost a year later 

on June 20, 2014, the Respondent submitted said information. (Exhibit 5). Shortly thereafter, the 

FAA issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on September 24, 20144 On or about 

October 1, 2014, the Respondent filed a request for a hearing. Six days later, on October 7, 2014, 

the FAA filed its Complaint. 

On January 23, 2015, the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Law arguing that the 

FAA's Complaint should be dismissed based on the equitable doctrine oflaches. 

Argument 

Because the Respondent is asserting the affirmative defense of laches, the Respondent 

bears the burden of proof. Matter of John J Carroll, FAA Order No. 90-21, Docket No 

CP89NE0285, Order Served August 16, 1990. In order to prevail on a laches affirmative 

defense, the Respondent must show that (1) the FAA inexcusably delayed in bringing the instant 

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

Complaint. 

2 
action against the Respondent and (2) that as a result of the delay, the Respondent is prejudiced 

in its defense of the action. !d. Pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations, the FAA has 

five-years from the time the violations occurred to commence an action. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. See 

also Matter of John J. Carroll. 

As to the first element, the FAA did not delay commencing the action in this matter. 

The FAA issued the Respondent an LOI one month after the FAA became aware of the 

violations contained in the Complaint. (Exhibit 1 ). The LOI referenced each work order alleged 

to contain an aircraft part for which the Respondent maintained, overhauled, and/or tested 

without the proper tooling. As a result, the Respondent received both a timely and detailed notice 

of the FAA's allegations. (Exhibit 1). Additionally, the Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, 

Final Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, and Complaint were each issued or filed within the 

five-year statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Based on the foregoing, the 

Respondent has failed to show that the Agency inexcusably delayed bringing the instant action 

against the Respondent. 

With regard to the second element, the Respondent has not shown that it has been 

prejudiced in its defense of the action. First, the Respondent fails to address the fact that its 

employee admitted that the Respondent did not have proper tooling. (Exhibit 3). This admission 

defeats the Respondent's allegation that it is prejudiced in presenting a defense in this matter. 

Second, the Respondent claims that its engineering consultant, Jack Batista, will testify 

that he assisted in creating blueprints for the testing equipment required to service the parts 

referenced in the Complaint. The Respondent asserts that it expects Batista to testify that the 

privately built testing equipment was equivalent to that required by the manufacturer. However, 

3 
the Respondent states it has been unable to locate Batista, and as result, is prejudiced m 

presenting its defense that it had the proper equipment to 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, 

appropriately qualified, engineer cannot opine that the Respondent's privately built testing 

equipment is equivalent to that required by the manufacturer. 

In the alternative, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the 

Respondent conducted a due-diligence search for the witness. Rather, the Respondent has 

offered only a simple allegation that Batista cannot be contacted. Because the Respondent has 

offered nothing more, the Respondent has not shown that it has been prejudiced. 

Next, the Respondent asserts in its brief it is prejudiced because Ledo Industrial Machine 

Shop ("Ledo") went out of business after the FAA issued the LOI to the Respondent. The 

Respondent alleges that it shipped its privately built testing equipment to Ledo for the purpose of 

separating two components contained on one stand to two components on two stands. The 

Respondent asserts that Ledo (or an employee of Ledo) would testify about the work performed 

on the testing equipment. However, the Respondent claims Ledo is no longer in business, and as 

a result, Ledo (or an employee ofLedo) is unable to corroborate the Respondent's position. 

First, the Respondent fails to state the period of time that elapsed between the date the 

FAA issued its LO I and the date Ledo ceased operations. This time line is important to determine 

whether the Respondent had the opportunity to inquire with Ledo prior to the company going out 

of busir.ess, and what, if any, inquiry the Respondent conducted. Second, the Respondent has 

not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent conducted a due-diligence search for 

any Ledo employees. The Respondent suggests that because Ledo is no longer in business, the 

4 
Respondent is hopeless in obtaining any relevant information. Without more, the Respondent is 

unable to substantiate that it has been prejudiced. As a result, the Respondent has not satisfied 

its burden. See also Matter of John Carroll ("Respondent has not alleged the type of prejudice 

that has been held to support a laches defense: that the delay resulted in a loss of evidence or 

witnesses supporting his position, or that he changed his position in a way that would not have 

occurred by for the delay.") 

Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has failed to establish an affirmative defense of 

laches, in that the Respondent has not shown that (1) the FAA inexcusably delayed in bringing 

the instant action against the Respondent and that (2) the Respondent suffered actual prejudice as 

a result. Therefore, the Respondent has not carried its burden; as such, its motion to dismiss the 

Complaint must be denied. 

R'"G~rniUcl<hi" /O" ,d,yof f.,\,~,2015 

William Vines 

Counsel for Complainant 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was sent 

to the following via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

David M. McDonald, Esq. 

McDonald & McDonald 

Attorneys at Law 

P.O. Box 669122-9428 

Miami, FL 33135-2321 

Telephone: (305) 643-5313 

Facsimile: (305) 643-4990 

,, 

I~(. DYliiVD Btw~ j < \ 

Donna Stanley '1 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

fEB I 0 2015 

Dated 

6 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

South Florida 

Flight Standards District Office 19 

2895 SW 1451h Avenue, Suite 120 

Miramar, Florida 33027 

Federal Avlcflon 

Adminlstrcfion 

JUN 2 3 2011 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT FEB 1 8 2015 

EIR Number 2011 SOI90272 

Mr. Jay Eugene Allen 

Accountable Manager 

PAZ Aviation, Inc. 

7455 West 2"d Court 

1-!ialeab, Florida 33014 

Dear Mr. Allen: 

This letter is to inform you we are investigating an incident that involve an article 

overhauled by Paz Aviation, Inc. (PAZ), a 14 CFR part 145 Repair Station certiticatc 

#XPZR1851, which failed during operation. The subject Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit 

Assembly, P/N 65-44561-15, S/N 8356, had the following maintenance performed by 

PAZ. 

• Work Order PAZ-25837, OverhauledMay27, 2010. 

• Work Order PAZ-27429, Tested September 27,2010. 

• Work Order PAZ-29345, Repaired April27, 2011. 

On June 20, 2011, this office visited PAZ, and interviewed PAZ management and 

employees. Our interview with Mr. Antonio Yanez, the technician who performed 

maintenance on the subject article, revealed he did not use the required tools or test 

procedures after maintenance and also stated "the unit was not tested 100% for lack of 

tooling". 

Further investigation revealed PAZ was unable to provide the required Tools and 

Equipment or equivalency of tools used to return this article to service. 

PAZ Work Order log shows the following listed Work Orders could also be affected. 

Work Order Date Description Part Number - Serial II -

1 29409 04/20/2011 Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit 65-44561-15 5307 

Assembly 

2 29408 04/20/2011 " 65-44561-15 4469 

3 29407 04/20/2011 ,, 

4 28555 01/24/2011 " ~~:::;~: ::fl=-~i~~ 5 28554 01/24/2011 " 65-44561-15 3764 - ----· 

5 GOVERNMENT .. EXHIBIT i j_ i 
2 

- ' ------------ ---

6 28397 01/11/2011 " 65-44561-15 \0857 - --· --

7 28396 01/11/2011 " 65-44561-15 4421 

8 28171 12/07/20 I 0 " 65-44561-1 ~- 4088 

" 

f-:o-o------

9 28170 12/07/2010 65-44561-15 J374A\3 --·-- --------·-

10 28106 I2/01/2010 " 65-44561-1 5 \0592 -----

11 27884 11120/2010 " 65-44561-15 7452 

12 27885 11/20/2010 " 65-44561-I5 9717 - -· ---- ---------

13 27886 11/1112010 65-44561-15 10617 

14 27868 11/02/2010 " 65-44561-15 5432 - ----

-

15 27867 11/02/20 I 0 " 65-4456J-I5 I 0685 -··---- ----·-

16 27866 I1/02/20 10 " 65-44561-15 6\06 --- r------

17 275I7 09/29/2010 .. 65-44561-15 4444 - ---- -------

\8 27516 09/29/2010 '' 65-44561-14 4617 -- ------ -- 19 27160 08/17/2010 .. 65-44561-15 97\7 

20 27159 08/17/2010 " --- 65-44561-15 -~T--7452 

21 27158 08/17/2010 " 65-44561-15 10617 

22 27157 08/17/2010 " 

-65-i4~6J-15 r=~l§so- --- 23 27063 08/09/2010 ;.;; 65-44561-15 i 7099 

24 26477 06/04/2010 " 

··+------

65-4456\-14 ' 3136!\ 

25 26476 06/03/2010 " 

-" ·t " 

- ------ --

-

65-44561-15 ' 2465 

26 -- ----·---

-

26143 04/26/2010 " 65-44561-15 4635 

27 26027 04/15/2010 " 65-44561-15 9847 

4 25909 03/31!2()[0 " 65-44561-15 I 4759 __ , ____ -

29 25908 03/31/2010 " 65-44561-9 425296 -· -----~ 

30 25838 03/25/2010 " 65-44561-15 7485 -- ------ -----

3I 25837 03/25/20 I 0 " 65-44561-15 8356 -- ------

32 25792 03119/20 I 0 " 65-44561-15 \1101 

---·-~--

33 25791 03/19/20 I 0 " 

I :t:!l!\i~-:1tl ._ ... _. . . 

34 25560 02/17/20IO " --

35 25018 12/07/2009 " 

36 25017 12/07/2009 65-4456I-15 560S - r--:c-: -- ----. . 37 24956 11/25/2009 " 65-44561-15 5632 

38 24955 I1/25/2009 .. 65-44561-15 97084 ---- --· ------ ---

39 24857 1l/13/2009 " 65-44561-15 4423 

" --- 3893;\[3. 40 24856 II /IJ/2009 65-44561-15 - 41 24855 11/I3/2009 " 65-44561-15 4567 ,. ' ---

42 24854 ll/13/2009 " 65-44561-15 7856 

r 43 

-------

-

24801 Il/09/2009 " 65-44561-15 30771\ 

65-44561-14 ----

44 24555 10/06/2009 " 3 156!\ ·-----' --.. ------

i 45 24340 09/01/2009 " 65-44561-15 6871 ··-----"" 

46 24075 07/30/2009 " 65-44561-15 11474 -·- ------------

47 23893 07/06/2009 " 65-44561-15 5953 ---·--· ------

48 23773 06/16/2009 " 65-44561-15 g-o7 ).)..._ 
3 

This action may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations; this letter is to inform 

you that this matter is under investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration. We 

wish to offer you an opportunity to present any evidence or statement you may care to 

make concerning this matter. The evidence or statements should be in sufficient detail and 

contain all pertinent facts and any extenuating or mitigating, circumstances, which you 

believe, may have a bearing on this matter. 

If you desire to do either of these, the actions should be accomplished within ten (I 0) days 

following receipt of this letter. Any discussion or written statement will be given 

consideration in the final conclusion of our investigation. However, if we do not hear from 

you within the specified time, our report will be processed without the beneilt of your 

statement. 

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

Sincerely, 

~/F ~ ~1st Biamby Jr. 

Ji'rincipal Maintenance Inspector 
FEB 1 B 2015 

SOUTH FLORIDA FLIGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFFICE 19 

Ernst Biamby Jr.- South Florida Miami Flight Standards District Office 19 

August 26, 20 II 

INSPECTOR STATEMENT 

On June 20, 2011, I investigated 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 CFR part 145 Repair Station 

certificate #XPZR185L, with Radio Class,l,2,3 and Limited Accessory, Non-Destructive 

Ratings performed maintenance on a Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, 

(PCU), PIN 65-44561-15, SIN 8356, which failed during a test flight of an SAS, 737-

400, as stated in the Complaint email. Listed below are the details of the work orders: 

I. Overhauled under Work Order# P AZ-25837, dated May 27, 2010. 

2. Tested under Work Order# PAZ-27429, dated September 27, 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 return to service. 

Following this interview PAZ employees could not explain why the PCU failed. I 

requested to see the equipment Mr. Yanez used to test the PCU. Mr. Yanez showed us a 

roll-around cart located on the shop floor containing (2) fixtures/tools which he identified 

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. I then requested that PAZ provide the tools, test equipment and equivalent 

substitute as required by the CMM. The Shop Manager Mr. Humberto Zamora could not 

provide any documents to support tooling equivalency. I expressed to PAZ that my 

investigation is to determine what caused this PCU to fail, and if they would provide 

factual information it would save a lot of time investigating this matter. After hearing my 

comment Mr. Yanez revealed he did not use the required tools or test procedures after 

maintenance and he stated "the unit was not tested 100% due to the lack of some 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 of how the unit was tested. 

GOVERNMENT 1 

EXHIBIT 

d. 
My review of PAZ equivalency file #374, for the PCU, which was provided by Mr. 

Humberto Zamora, did not contain any equivalency or evidence of the required tools was 

ever obtained by PAZ. I asked Mr. Humberto Zamora, how this article was returned to 

service without being properly tested? His response was that "it was an oversight on my 

part". None of the employees interviewed could explain how this article was tested. I 

collected copies of Work Order# PAZ-25837, Work Order# PAZ-27429, and Work 

Order# PAZ-29345. I informed PAZ management that I would return the next day to 

copy Work Orders for previous PCU, maintained by PAZ. 

On June 21,2011, I returned to PAZ, this time in addition to the above mentioned 

management personnel present was PAZ Accountable Manager Mr. Jay Allen and 

Consultant Mr. Jack Batista, a proposed future employee who will be handling quality 

control issues. After briefmg Mr. Allen of my fmdings I requested scanned copies of the 

(48) affected Work Orders listed below. 

Work Order Date Description Part Number 

I 29409 04/20/2011 Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit 65-44561-15 

Assembly 

2 29408 04/20/2011 " " 

3 29407 04/20/2011 " " 

4 28555 01124/2011 " " 

5 28554 01124/2011 " " 

6 28397 01111/2011 " " 

7 28396 01/11/2011 " " 

8 28171 12/07/2010 " " 

9 28170 12/07/2010 " " 

10 28106 12/0112010 " " 

II 27884 11120/2010 " " 

12 27885 11120/2010 " " 

13 27886 11/1112010 

14 27868 11/02/2010 " " 

15 27867 11102/2010 " " 

16 27866 11102/2010 " " 

17 27517 09/29/2010 " " 

18 27516 09/29/2010 " " 

19 27160 08/17/2010 " " 

20 27159 08/17/2010 " " 

21 27158 08/17/2010 " " 

22 27157 08/17/2010 " " 

23 27063 08/09/2010 " " 

24 26477 06/04/2010 " " 

25 26476 06/03/2010 " " 

26 26143 04/26/2010 " " 

27 26027 04/15/2010 " " 

28 25909 03/3112010 " " 

29 25908 03/3112010 " " 

2 

Serial# 

5307 

4469 

4391 

8169 

3764 

10857 

4421 

4088 

3374AB 

10592 

7452 

9717 

10617 

5432 

10685 

6106 

4444 

4617 

9717 

7452 

10617 

1680 

7099 

3136A 

2465 

4635 

9847 

4759 

425296 
30 25838 03/25/2010 " " 

31 25837 03/25/2010 " " 

32 25792 03/19/2010 " " 

33 25791 03/19/2010 " " 

34 25560 02/17/2010 " " 

35 25018 12/07/2009 " " 

36 25017 12/07/2009 

37 24956 11/25/2009 " " 

38 24955 11/25/2009 " " 

39 24857 11/13/2009 " " 

40 24856 11/13/2009 " " 

41 24855 11/13/2009 " " 

42 24854 11/13/2009 " " 

43 24801 11/09/2009 " " 

44 24555 10/06/2009 " " 

45 24340 09/01/2009 " " 

46 24075 07/30/2009 " " 

47 23893 07/06/2009 " " 

48 23773 06/16/2009 " " 

While waiting for the digitally scanned copies of the above listed affected work orders to 

be completed, I returned to the shop floor for further evaluation of the tools I observed on 

June 20, 2011. Accompanied by PAZ management to the shop floor, I noticed a new 

Actuator Test Stand and a Test Fixture which were not in the facility on the previous day 

June 20, 2011. Mr. Batista proceeded to explain that these Test Stands were just 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 of threatening Mr. Yanez. I promptly interrupted him and informed him that 

no one was threatened and that Mr. Yanez was interviewed in the presence of PAZ 

Management and for him make an untrue accusation is unacceptable. PAZ management 

team Mr. Juan and Mr. Humberto Zamora reiterated to Mr. Allen that Mr. Yanez was not 

threatened. Mr. Allen attempted to substantiate that the new tools were previously owned 

and used by PAZ, by providing an invoice #437246, dated 06/20/2011, from Ledo 

Industrial Machine Shop for the amount of $5200.00, which shows that this test stand 

was newly manufactured. I then informed Mr. Allen that there is no evidence that PAZ 

ever owned these tools, since review of the equivalency file #374, does not contain any 

equivalency of any of the required tools. 

I collected the scanned copies of the affected work orders and left the facility. 

On June 22, 2011, I received an email from Mr. Juan Zamora to ST Aerospace Solution 

(Europe), requesting the subject PCU, be returned for functional test. 

On June 23, 2011, l sent a letter oflnvestigation toPAZ. 

3 

7485 

8356 

11101 

6313 

0357 

5800 

5608 

5632 

97084 

4423 

3893AB 

4567 

7856 

3077A 

3156A 

6871 

11474 

5953 

8532 
I 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 of randomly 

selected articles listed on PAZ's Capability List for self-evaluation and equivalency of 

tools. The result of this inspection revealed that PAZ did not have the required tools, 

equivalency, self-evaluation and supporting documents. 

The following articles were randomly selected: 

Manufacturer Description PIN 

1 Boeing Main Gear Actuator 65-17830 

2 Boeing Flap Control Valve Assembly 65-22958 

3 Boeing Flap Transmission 65-26613 

4 Boeing Spoiler Power Control 65C16300 

5 Pratt Whitney Pressure Bleed Valve 658385 

6 BoeinJ> Reservoir Assembly_ 5936986 

Further evaluation of open in-process Work Orders listed below, did not have all the 

required tools, equivalency, self-evaluation and supporting documents. 

Work Order Dated Manufacturer Description PIN SIN 

21234 05/06/3008 Honeywell TurbineAxial Vane 801240-4 071884-23 

29990 06/22/2011 Eaton NC Motor/Pump 861556 MX381529 

I observed on the shop floor the new Actuator Stand previously seen on June 20, 2011, 

except now it is tagged "Do not use -Not complete" confirming that this unit was newly 

purchased. 

I also observed a PCU Test Fixture with uncalibrated Dial Indicators being fabricated 

which also confirms PAZ did not have this tool for testing of previous PCU's that were 

returned to service. 

On July 11, 2011, I received PAZ response letter to my Letter of Investigation. 

On July 12, 2011, I sent a letter informing 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, confirming receipt our 

letter dated 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, 2011, I performed a follow-up inspection of PAZ, for evaluation of their 

progress with the self evaluation of the articles listed on their capabilities list. PAZ was 

in the process of reevaluating all articles. PAZ provided a folder #374, containing self 

4 
evaluation documents for the PCU. We requested a test demonstration for the PCU, PAZ 

at this time could not perform this test due to lack of tooling (being modified). 

Paz informed us that they have not returned any articles to service. 

The CPU was returned toPAZ 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 1, 2011, I visited PAZ, to perform an evaluation of documents for 

equivalency and self evaluation for the Flight Spoiler Power Control assembly PIN65-

44561-15. 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 preliminary 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, 2011, at which time all documents, test 

equipment and testing of the PCU, would be done. 

On August 25, 2011, I returned a telephone call to the Regional Specialist responsible 

for this case. We discussed of the case and the following was requested: 

1. Insert as an lOP PAZ's Repair Station Manual, policies and procedures, section, 

for Tools Equivalency. 

• Provide a signed Inspector Statement. 

• Further Explain Pictures lOP# 6, 14, 21, 22. 

• Inspector Statement from Inspector Louis Arrazo1a. 

• Revise and resubmit the Statement of case with all additional lOP's insert at the 

end. 

On August 26, 2011, we received a telephone message from Mr. Batista, cancelling our 

inspection due to PAZ, not being ready for our inspection. 

On Augnst 30, 2011, this office performed a follow-up inspection of tool equivalency tor 

Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assy, PIN 65-44561. We reviewed the equivalency 

documents in Book 3 74, and they were found acceptable. PAZ satisfactorily tested a 

Power Control unit. As a result this office will accept PAZ submitted Capability List 

Revision 16, dated August 30,2011. 

5 
In 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 D~itally si;lned by£mst Btamby 

B

' b DN:~S,,!>ooFli=Miami,=fi\Ao""'-FAA, 

1am y o.9.n42.19100300.100.1.1=1194D.cn,.-£m>t 

Siam by, oma11=mst.blambyi;lfaa.goo 

Doto: 2011.09.02 06:14:0o1 -<M'OO 

Ernst Biamby Jr. 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

6 
Aviation, Inc. 

I Antonio Yanez 

Tested unit P.N. 65-44561-15 S.N. 8356 W/0 27429, 29345 and 25837 Flight Spoiler 

Actu o I did test the unit I 00% for lack of some tooling. 

An 

viati n, Inc. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

3 
65-44561' 65-49580 

1. Tesling 

A. Tools/Equipment 

rzi--ooE,NG' 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

NOTE: Equivalent substitutes may be used. 

Reference 

COM-5349 

SPL-5346 

SPL-5435 

SPL-5459 

SPL-6874 

SPL-11814 

STD-381 

STD-382 

STD-1238 

STD-2604 

ST0-3761 

STD-3913 

STD-4766 

ST0-8746 

STD-11757 

STD-11848 

STD-11849 

B. Consumable Materials 

Description 

X-Y Recorder/Plotter 

(Part#: 925E, Supplier: 60795) 

(Part#: XY530T, Supplier: 72264) 

(Opt Part #: 7045B, Supplier: 28480) 

(Opt Part#: 7090A, Supplier: 28480) 

Flow meter - 0-2 gpm 

(Part#: 410DME-3R, Supplier: 81205) 

Test Equipment- Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit 

(Part#: F80224-79, Supplier: 81205) 

(Opt Part#: F80224-60, Supplier: 81205) 

Position Transducer 

(Part#: SS-101, Supplier: 00288) 

Gage - Pressure, Differential 

Port Assembly- Flight Spoiler Control Unit (F80224-67 is included in 

F80224-79) 

(Part#: F80224-67, Supplier: 81205) 

Gauge- Hydraulic Pressure, 0 to 6000 psi (41369 kPa) 

Gauge- Hydraulic Pressure, 3000 psi (20, 684 kPa) 

Indicator- Dial 

Gauge, Hydraulic Pressure, 0 to 50 psi (0 to 344 kPa) 

Gauge - Hydraulic Pressure, 0 to 3000 psi (0 to 20,684 kPa) 

Test Stand- Hydraulic, 0 to 5500 psi (0 to 37921 kPa), psi increments 

Scale - Spring, 0 to 50 lbs (0 to 222 N) 

Graduated Beaker- 500CC 

Gage- Flow, 2000 cc/min 

Drip Tube - Hydraulic 

Flow Transducer - Hydraulic, 0 to 2 gpm 

NOTE: Equivalent substitutes may be used. 

Reference Description 

D50122 Fluid- Hydraulic, Skydrol 

BOEING PROPRIETARY • Copyright 'f;; Unpublished Work - See title 

Specification 

BMS3-11, Type 

IV or Type V 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

4-

Page 101 

Jul 01/2010 
65-44561, 65-49580 ~DEING" 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

TEST MANIFOLD 

F80224-6 ------~-1 

RETURN IRI 

I HIDDEN! 

EXTEND 

TEST PORT 

~FIXTURE F80224-60 

Flow Curve Test 

Figure 103 

1975271 50000356365_ V1 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 110 

Jul 0112010 

BOEING PROPRIETARY· Copyright1) Unpublished Work- See title page for details 
65-44561, 65-49580 rtl--DDEING' 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

SIMULATOR 

HOLD ARM 

F80224--4~ 

Positional Accuracy Test 

Figure 104 

FIXTURE F80224--60 

PROTRACTOR 

ASSY 

1 975278 S0000356366 _ V1 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page111 

Jul 01/2010 

BOEING PROPRIETARY · Copyright t:' Unpublished Work • See title page for details 
65-44561, 65-49580 rzi-_BDEING' 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

SIMULATOR 

HOLD ARM 

DIAL INDICATOR 

CLAMPASSY~ 

~FIXTURE FB0224-60 

Output Resolution Check 

Figure 105 

PROTRACTOR 

ASSY l 

~ 

1975284 50000356357 _ V1 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 112 

Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY • Copyright (Q Unpublished Work- Soo title page for details 
65-44561' 65-49580 

POWER 

TENSION 

CYLINDER 

j 

¥:i--BOEING" 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

DIAL INDICATOR 

& ROD 

SCALE 

POWER 

CONTROL 

UNIT 

PROTRACTOR 

ASSY 

FIXTURE F80224--60 

1975296 80000356358 _ V1 

Hold-Down Check Valve Leakage, Dynamic Seal/Load, Piston Stroke Test 

Figure 106 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 113 

Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright{") Unpublished Work · See title page for details 
65-44561, 65-49580 v;:i-BDEING" 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

CYLINDER RETRACT (CR) 

THA EE WIRE LEADS FROM 

POSITION TRANSDUCER TO 

X-Y RECORDER 

CYLINDER EXTEND ICEI 

IAI 

Check Valve, Flow Control Valve Test 

Figure 108 

65-44561 

TEST FIXTURE 

TX150796 

1975315 S0000356370_ V1 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 121 

Jul 01/2010 

BOEING PROPRIETARY - Copyright It; Unpublished Work- See title page lor details 
65-44561' 65-49580 !('l_DDEING' 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

SETTING AND CHECKING 

FIXTUI<E, TX 150821 -

Rod End Adjustment 

Figure 109 

1975325 S0000356371_ V1 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 122 

Jul 0112010 

BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright t,} Unpublished Work - See title page for details 
65-44561' 65-49580 rzl-_aoEING' 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

SIMULATED 

SPOILER PANEL 

ROTARY OUTPUT TRANSDUCER MOUNTED 

ON SUPPORT BRACKET (NOT 

ON NEWER FIXTURES) 

LINEAR OUTPUT TRANSDUCER 

TX150804-3 (MOUNTED ON 

ACTUATOR ON NEWER FIXTURES) 

POSITIONAL ACCURACY 

CHECK FIXTURE, 

TX150804 

LINEAR INPUT POSITION 

TRANSDUCER, TX150804-2 

Positional Accuracy/Output Resolution Check 

Figure 110 

1975332 50000356372 _ V1 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 123 

Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright it) Unpublished Work - See title page for details 
65-44561' 6549580 cp.__aoE,NG' 

COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL 

/''--- LOADING AND CYCLING 

FIXTURE, TX150820 

1975392 S0000356375_ V1 

Hold-Down Check Valve Leakage, Dynamic Seal/Load, Piston Stroke Test 

Figure 113 

27-60-41 

TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION 

Page 126 

Jul 01/2010 

BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright (C) Unpublished Work - See title page tor details 
DAVID c_ McDONALD (1897 -1971) 

DAVID McDONALD 

William P. Vines, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

P 0 Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Re: Paz Aviation, Inc. 

McDONALD & McDONALD 

Attorneys at Law 

Established 1927 

0 

1393 SW First Street 

Suite 200 

Miami, Florida 33135-2321 

TELEPHONE (305) 643-5313 

fACSIMILE (305) 643-4990 

dmmlilm1cdonaldattomeys.cpm 

June 20, 2014 

DAVID M_ McDONALD* 

PATRICK G. McOONALD 

*Board Certified in Aviation Law 

Via fax: 404 305-5223 

and 

Email: William.Vines@faa.gov 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

Case No. 2011S0190272 

Our File No. 12-13 8 

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 of it back in the shop. 

Please call me to discuss if you have any questions. 

Best regards, 

Sincerely, 

McDONALD & McDONALD 

DMM:mml 

Attachments as stated 

Is/: David M McDonald 

David M. McDonald 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

s-

-~LCl~IVED \,-·---- --· --------. 

J UN 2 3 201.1 

FAA Pl··,:· ... ·~ 

SOL II-i'-.;,~. iJ,~ 11:'-·" 
 

AL MACHINE SHOF 

NS, FL 33018 

Date 06/20111 

Amount 5.200.00 
.c 

Li372L1C 

CE 

---,..._--,-------~~;;---------:::----·-, :~ -, AL \"\!"t.l-11 t::S~u'\1 s"~I\L. \li (11iirll.N( •Jiut!l~ .2__c•s:._c:'."~•~~ 

RDER NO. tOlD BY 

SKIPPED 

ADDA€1/S 

_ A \\ ~._ '-_;0 vV L ·~.z.- .. r · ____ _ 

CITY. STATE, f-f' , -- . 

\\ I'(\\\'(,, h \. \_ '/ ') L ''t 

l TEAMS- I F.O.B I OAT'[ ~ '"' ".J lJ · ' ., ·- ' ') I I - '-' . l 

DESCRIPTION PRICE utm ,t.MOU~T 

c 0 "'':>' ~'~ v ( , o"' \) "' ~ ~>~ 1'\_'::Q..__ _ _ -~ ___ -+~ 1s, z. oc _Q.o._ 

I l'll'""'i'1'cc 

1 ~ n \ : ~ 

 +---·-- ---

 

' 

-------

.. J- 1-- -- '--- ... -------

"-· --------'<------1·--

.tD 

-

.. 

_ __,..., .. ·----r---

___________ :=_ ____ \:_'--l_/_=------r._-- ., __ . -+-------s~o0-0 ~-