### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

. ' · OFFICE OFJIEARINCS , ... : .. 

## WASHINGTON; D..

## c.: 

# FEB 18 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 employeeprovided a signedstatement that he didnotproperly test an aircraftpartbecause ofa "lack oftooling."2 

### (Exhibit, 3). The specific testing**~quipment** 

### at issue is referenced in Boeing Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) Flight Spoiler Power Unit
1 One ofthese is parts is a Flight Spoiler Power Control Unit Assembly, part number 65-44561-15, serial number 8356, as referenced iu Respondent's work order mimber PAZ-25837. 2 The part referenced by the Respondent's**e~Tlployee** is Same partreferenced in in footnote 1.

### Control Assembly 27-60-41. (Exhibit 1) (Exhibit 4). On or about June 23,2011, the FAAissued
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 the requiredtools or testing procedures. (Exhibit 1). OnJuly 8, 2011, the Respondent submitted a responseto 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 aircraftparts. Almost a year later
onJune 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 FAAfiled its Complaint. On January 23, 2015, the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Law arguing that the FAA's Complaint should be dismissedbased on the equitable doctrine oflaches. Argument Because the Respondent is asserting the affirmative defense of laches, the Respondent bears the burden of proof. 

### Matter ofJohn J 

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

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

### 2

### action against the Respondent and (2) that as a result ofthe delay, the Respondent is prejudiced in its defense ofthe action. !d. Pursuant to the applicable statute oflimitations, the FAA has five-years from the time the violations occurred to commence an action. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. See also Matter of 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 ofthe FAA's allegations. (Exhibit 1). Additionally, the Notice ofProposed Certificate Action, Final Notice ofProposed 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 didnothaveproper tooling. 

### (Exhibit 3). This admission defeats the Respondent's allegationthatit is prejudiced inpresenting a defense inthis matter. Second, the Respondent claims that its engineering consultant, Jack Batista, will testify that he assisted in creating blueprints for the testing equipment required to service the parts referenced in the Complaint. The Respondent asserts that it expects Batista to testify that the privately built testing equipment was equivalent to 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 hadthe 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 equivalentto that required bythe manufacturer. In the alternative, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent conducted a due-diligence search for the witness. Rather, the Respondent has offered only a simple allegation that Batista cannot be contacted. Because the Respondent has offered nothing more, the Respondenthas not shown that ithas beenprejudiced. Next, the Respondent asserts in its briefit 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 privatelybuilttesting equipment to Ledo for the purpose of separating two components contained on 

### one stand to two components on 

### two stands. The Respondent asserts that Ledo (or an employee ofLedo) would testify about the work performed
onthe testing equipment. However, the Respondent claims Ledo is no longer inbusiness, and as a result, Ledo (or an employee ofLedo) is unable to corroboratethe Respondent's position. First, the Respondent fails to state the period oftime that elapsed between the date the FAA issued its LOI and the date Ledo ceased operations. This timeline is importantto determine whether the Respondent had the opportunityto inquire with Ledo prior to the company going out ofbusir.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 ofprejudice that has been held to support a laches defense: that the delay resulted in a loss ofevidence 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 mustbe 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 WrightBuilding- Suite 2W1000 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey 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 ofthe Regional Counsel 

## fEB I0 2015 Dated

6U.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 32011 CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT 

## FEB 18 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. OnJune 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 oftools used to return this article to service. PAZ Work Order log showsthe 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 

### ,,



# ~~:::;~:**::fl=-~i~~** 4 28555 01/24/2011 " 

### 5 28554 01/24/2011 " 

### 65-44561-15 3764

- ----· 

## 5GOVERNMENT


# .. EXHIBIT 

## i 

# j_ 

# i2

- ' ------------ --- 6 28397 01/11/2011 

### " 65-44561-15 \0857

- --· -- 7 28396 01/11/2011 

### " 65-44561-15 4421 8 28171 12/07/20I0 

### " 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 11/02/20I0 

### " 65-4456J-I5 I0685

-··---- ----·- 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 

# ---

**-~T--** 20 27159 08/17/2010 

### " 65-44561-15 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 03/25/20I0 

### " 65-44561-15 8356

-- ------

32 25792 03119/20I0 

### " 65-44561-15 \1101

**---·-~--** 33 25791 03/19/20I0 

### " 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 ofthe 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. Ifyou desire to do either ofthese, the actions should be accomplished within ten (I 0) days following receipt ofthis letter. Any discussion or written statement will be given consideration in the final conclusion ofour investigation. However, ifwe do not hear from you within the specified time, our report will be processed without the beneilt ofyour 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 1B2015

SOUTH FLORIDAFLIGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFFICE 19
ErnstBiamby Jr.- SouthFloridaMiami Flight Standards District Office 19 August 26, 20II INSPECTOR STATEMENT
On June 20, 2011, I investigated a complaintreceived viaemail with attachments, dated June 15,2011, againstPaz Aviation, Inc, from ST Aerospace Solutions (Europe). The complaint alleges that Paz Aviation, Inc. (PAZ) a 14 CFRpart 145 Repair Station certificate#XPZR185L, withRadio Class,l,2,3 and LimitedAccessory, Non-Destructive Ratings performed maintenance on a Flight SpoilerPowerControlUnitAssembly, (PCU), 

### PIN 65-44561-15, 

### SIN 8356, which failed during atest flight ofan SAS, 737- 400, as statedin the Complaint email. Listedbelow are the details ofthe workorders: I. Overhauled underWork Order#PAZ-25837, dated May27, 2010. 2. Tested underWork Order#PAZ-27429, dated September27, 2010. 3. Repaired underWork Order#PAZ-29345, dated April27, 2011. I interviewed PAZ Quality Control Manager Mr. JuanZamora, Shop Manager Mr. Humberto Zamora and Mechanic Mr. Antonio Yanez, who performed maintenance on the PCU, andthey all confirmedthatthePCU was tested priorto returnto service. Following this interview PAZemployees couldnotexplainwhythePCU failed. I requestedto see the equipment Mr. Yanez used to test the PCU. Mr. Yanez showedus a roll-around cart located onthe shop floor containing (2) fixtures/tools whichhe identified as the tools usedto test the PCU. Thesetools are not equivalentto those listedinthe Boeing ComponentMaintenance Manual (CMM) ATA 27-60-41, page 101, 110-113, 121-123, 126. I then requestedthat PAZprovide the tools, test equipment andequivalent substitute as requiredby the CMM. The Shop Manager Mr. Humberto Zamoracouldnot provideany documents to supporttooling equivalency. I expressedto PAZthatmy investigationis to determine what causedthis PCU to fail, andifthey wouldprovide factual information it would save a lot oftime investigating this matter. Afterhearingmy comment Mr.Yanez revealedhe did not use the requiredtools ortestprocedures after maintenance andhe stated "theunit was nottested 100% due to the lackofsometools" andheprovided a statement. Mr. JuanZamoraattemptedto explain thatthe fixture used for testing this PCU was not in the shop because it was being modified, whichis contrary to Mr. Yanez's account ofhow theunit was tested. GOVERNMENT 1 EXHIBIT 

# d.Myreview ofPAZ equivalency file #374, for the PCU, which was provided by Mr. Humberto Zamora, did not contain any equivalency orevidence ofthe required tools was ever obtainedbyPAZ. 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 ofthe employees interviewed could explain howthis article was tested. I collected copies ofWork Order# PAZ-25837, Work Order# PAZ-27429, andWork Order#PAZ-29345. I informed PAZ management that I would return the next day to copyWork Orders for previous PCU, maintained by PAZ. On June 21,2011, I returned to PAZ, this time in addition to the above mentioned management personnelpresent was PAZ Accountable Manager Mr. Jay Allen and Consultant Mr. JackBatista, a proposed future employee who will be handling quality control issues. Afterbriefmg Mr. Allen ofmy fmdings I requested scanned copies ofthe (48) affectedWork Orders listedbelow. 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 42529630 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 ofthe above listed affected work orders to be completed, I returned to the shop floor for further evaluation ofthe tools I observed on June 20, 2011. Accompanied byPAZ managementto the shop floor, I noticed a new ActuatorTest Stand and a Test Fixture whichwere notinthe facility onthe previous day June 20, 2011. Mr. Batistaproceeded to explainthat these Test Stands werejustreturned from beingmodified. My response to Mr. Batista's explanation, was that Mr. Yanez did not indicate to us that these tools existed and were available when werequested to see the equipmenthe usedto test the PCU. Atthat time, Mr. Allenbecame adversarial and accused me ofthreatening Mr. Yanez. I promptlyinterruptedhim and informedhimthat no one was threatened and that Mr. Yanez was interviewed in the presence ofPAZ Management and for him make anuntrue accusation is unacceptable. PAZmanagement team Mr. Juan and Mr. Humberto Zamorareiterated to Mr. Allenthat Mr. Yanez was not threatened. Mr. Allen attempted to substantiate that the new tools were previously owned andusedbyPAZ, byproviding aninvoice#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. Allenthat there is no evidence that PAZ everownedthese tools, sincereview ofthe equivalency file #374, does not contain any equivalency ofany ofthe required tools. I collectedthe scanned copies ofthe affected workorders and left the facility. 

### On June22, 

### 2011, I received an email from Mr. JuanZamora to ST Aerospace Solution (Europe), requesting the subject PCU, bereturned for functional test. 

### On June 23, 

### 2011, l sent a letter oflnvestigationtoPAZ.

3 7485 8356 11101 6313 0357 5800 5608 5632 97084 4423 3893AB

4567 7856 3077A 3156A

6871 11474 5953 8532I responded to 

### Mr. Zamora'semailrequesting thatuponreceiving PCU itbe placed in quarantine. On July 8, 2011, I performeda follow-up inspectionfor capabilities ofrandomly selectedarticles listed onPAZ's CapabilityList for self-evaluationand equivalency of tools. Theresult ofthis inspectionrevealed thatPAZ did not have the required tools, equivalency, self-evaluationand supporting documents. The following articles were randomly selected: Manufacturer Description 

### PIN 1 Boeing MainGear Actuator 65-17830 2 Boeing Flap ControlValve Assembly 65-22958 3 Boeing Flap Transmission 65-26613 4 Boeing SpoilerPowerControl 65C16300 5 PrattWhitney Pressure BleedValve 658385 6 BoeinJ> ReservoirAssembly_ 5936986 Further evaluationofopenin-process WorkOrders listed below, did not have all the requiredtools, equivalency, self-evaluationand supporting documents. WorkOrder 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 observedonthe shop floorthe new Actuator Standpreviously seen onJune 20, 2011, exceptnow it is tagged "Do notuse -Notcomplete" confirming thatthis unit was newly purchased. I also observeda PCUTestFixturewithuncalibratedDialIndicators being fabricated whichalso confirms PAZ did nothave this tool for testing ofprevious PCU'sthatwere returnedto service. On July 11, 2011, I receivedPAZ response letter to my Letter ofInvestigation. On July 12, 2011, I sent a letterinforming PAZ, thateffective July 8, 2011, priorto returning any articles to service, PAZ mustdemonstrate to the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) andcomply with all the requirements of 14 CFRPart 145.215,by revising andresubmit an acceptable CapabilityList. OnJuly 15, 2011, wereceived a telephone call from 

### Mr. Batista, confirming receipt our letterdatedJuly 12, 2011. Heinformedusthat PAZ wouldcomply with ourletter and that it wouldtake approximately2 weeks to bein compliance. On July 22, 2011, I performed a follow-up inspection ofPAZ, for evaluation oftheir progress withthe selfevaluationofthe articles listed ontheircapabilities list. PAZwas inthe process ofreevaluating all articles. PAZprovided a folder#374, containing self
4evaluation documents for the PCU. We requested a test demonstration for the PCU, PAZ atthis time could notperformthis test due to lackoftooling (beingmodified). Paz informed us that they have notreturned any articles to service. The CPU was returned toPAZ from ST Aerospace Solution (Europe) and we observed the shipping container was opened. We questioned whywas it open? PAZ responded that is how it was sent. On August 1, 2011, I visited PAZ, to perform anevaluationofdocuments for equivalency and selfevaluation for the Flight SpoilerPower Control assembly PIN65- 44561-15. PAZ could not providethe supporting documents for tools equivalency evaluation. On August 25, 2011, PAZ, management visited the FSDO, andrequested that we review the preliminary equivalency documents for Flight SpoilerPower Control Unit Assembly, 

### PIN 65-44561-15. We hadno objectionto the equivalency documents. PAZ requested that we come the facility on August 26, 2011, at whichtime all documents, test equipment and testing ofthe PCU, wouldbe done. On August 25, 2011, I returned a telephone callto the Regional Specialist responsible for this case. We discussed ofthe case and the following was requested: 1. Insert as an lOP PAZ's Repair StationManual, policies and procedures, section, for Tools Equivalency. • Provide a signedInspector Statement. • FurtherExplainPictures lOP# 6, 14, 21, 22. • Inspector Statement from InspectorLouis Arrazo1a. • Revise and resubmit the Statementofcase with all additional lOP's insert at the end. On August 26, 2011, wereceived a telephone message from Mr. Batista, cancelling our inspection due to PAZ, not being ready for our inspection. OnAugnst 30, 2011, this officeperformed a follow-up inspection oftool equivalency tor Flight SpoilerPowerControl Unit Assy, 

### PIN 65-44561. We reviewed the equivalency documents in Book374, and they were found acceptable. PAZ satisfactorily tested a Power Control unit. As a result this office will accept PAZ submittedCapabilityList Revision 16, dated August 30,2011.

5Inconclusionthis investigation has revealed that PAZ didnothave the Tools and Equipment and couldnothave properly tested this PCU, as required bythe Boeing CMM. 

## Ernst **D~itally** si;lned by£mst Btamby 

### B' 

## b

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

1 

## am y o.9.n42.19100300.100.1.1=1194D.cn,.-£m>t Siamby, oma11=mst.blambyi;lfaa.goo Doto: 2011.09.02 06:14:0o1 -<M'OO Ernst BiambyJr. Aviation Safety Inspector

6Aviation, 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 

### I00% for lack ofsome tooling.

An viati 

# n, Inc.

GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT



# 365-44561' 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 01/201065-44561, 65-49580


### ~DEING" COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

TEST MANIFOLD F80224-6
**------~-1** RETURN IRI IHIDDEN!

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 details65-44561, 65-49580 

### rtl--DDEING' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATOR HOLD ARM

**F80224--4~**

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

1975278S0000356366 _V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page111 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY · Copyrightt:' Unpublished Work • See title page for details65-44561, 65-49580 

### rzi-_BDEING' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SIMULATOR HOLD ARM

DIAL INDICATOR**CLAMPASSY~**

# ~FIXTURE FB0224-60

Output Resolution Check Figure 105 PROTRACTOR ASSY 

# l**~**

197528450000356357
_V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 112 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY • Copyright (Q Unpublished Work- Soo title page for details65-44561' 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 details65-44561, 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 details65-44561' 65-49580 !('l_DDEING' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

SETTING AND CHECKING FIXTUI<E, TX 150821 -

Rod End Adjustment Figure 109 1975325S0000356371_V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 122 Jul 0112010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright t,} Unpublished Work - See title page for details65-44561' 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 197533250000356372
_V1 

# 27-60-41 TESTING AND FAULT ISOLATION Page 123 Jul 01/2010 BOEING PROPRIETARY- Copyright it) Unpublished Work - See title page for details65-44561' 6549580 

## cp.__aoE,NG' COMPONENT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

/''--- LOADING AND CYCLING FIXTURE, TX150820

1975392S0000356375_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 detailsDAVID c_ McDONALD (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 

# 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 ofProposed Civil Penalty Case No. 2011S0190272 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 ofit back in the shop. Please call me to discuss ifyou have any questions. Best regards, Sincerely, McDONALD & 

### McDONALD

DMM:mml Attachments as stated Is/: DavidM McDonald David M. McDonald

GOVERNMENT 

### EXHIBIT 

# s- **-~LCl~IVED** \,-·---- --· ----- --- 

## . 

## JUN 2 3 201.1
FAA Pl··,:·...

**·~** SOL

**II-i'-.;,~. iJ,~**  11:'-·""f) **~**
t"'A£ lt.YI,tltllV"

1 lAO,.., 437246 To LEDO INDUSTRIAL MACHINE SHOF 7600 W. 30TH CT HIALEAH GARDENS, FL 33018 Memo ) l.MP1'2 ""' """""

Date 06/20111 Amount 5.200.00**,~, ~W;I**  l\

.c
Li372L1C INVOICE **~~=----,..._--,-------~~;;---------:::----·-,**

**:~** -, AL \"\!"t.l- 11 **t::S~u'\1 s"~I\L.** 
\li (11iirll.N( **•Jiut!l~ .2__c•s:._c:'."~•~~**  CUSTOMER ORDER NO. tOlD BY OROEAED 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'[

**~** '"' ·

' ., ·-
' ') I I ".J lJ

- '-'

.

l DESCRIPTION

PRICE utm **,t.MOU~T** c 0 "'':>' **~'~** v ( , o"' \) "' **~ ~>~**  1'\_'::Q..__

_ _ **-~** ___ **-+~** 1s, z. oc _Q.o._ l-
I l'll'""'i'1'cc

1
**~**

n

\

: **~** ------\
+---·-- --- A-6&40

t **..ei~m**

'
-------

.. J-
1-- -- '--- ... ------- "-· --------'<------1·-- .tD

- .. _ __,...,

.. ·----r--- :=_ ____ \:_'--l_/_=------r._-- **-+-------s~o0-0**

**~-** ___________

., __

.