Flightwatch

Volume 116 - January 2002

ALLEGED IMPROPER MAINTENANCE DISCOVERED TWO YEARS AFTER THE EVENT RESULTS IN A 225 DAY SUSPENSION OF THE MECHANIC'S CERTIFICATE

The case involved maintenance on a Bell helicopter, UH-1E performed in April of 1994. Incident to repairs effected to the helicopter, the mechanic completed a Form 337 reflecting the fact that the aircraft had undergone a major alteration or repair before the aircraft was returned to service. Although an FAA maintenance inspector had examined the aircraft during the course of the work, the evidence indicated that block 7 on the Form 337 had not been completed.

Two years later, when the helicopter was undergoing maintenance, another mechanic noticed discrepancies in the helicopter, which he believed rendered it unairworthy. The areas, which had been the subject of the 1994 repairs by Respondent, had not been the subject of any further repairs on the aircraft as reflected in its logbooks. This resulted in an inference that the physical discrepancies observed in the aircraft when compared to the logbook entries of 1994 suggested that the discrepancies in the aircraft were effected by the Respondent/mechanic in performing maintenance in 1994.

The problems with the helicopter are outlined in the six paragraphs below:

(1) That the forward engine bulkhead had been altered by adding an unapproved part;

(2) That the forward engine bulkhead to the flange of the engine bellmouth assembly had been improperly attached;

(3) That the engine mount fittings had been damaged (elongated) by improper drilling;

(4) That the Respondent/mechanic had damaged a right-hand upper tailboom mount fitting which had an improperly drilled tailboom mount bolt hole;

(5) That countersunk rivets had been installed in two incorrectly located holes in the right-hand beam cap and, thereafter, the surface had been ground flush with the beam cap surface; and

(6) That the upper left-hand tailboom mount fitting contained unauthorized, oversized, mounting holes and an unauthorized steel bushing pressed into its engine mount bolt hole.

As a consequence of these discrepancies discovered in the aircraft, the Administrator brought an action to revoke the mechanic's certificate claiming that the mechanic had violated § 43(a) and (b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. In essence, FAR § 43.13(a) requires that a mechanic complete his work "in accordance with accepted industry practices." FAR § 43.13(b) requires that the aircraft be returned to service in " . . . its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness."

The trial was bifurcated with evidentiary hearings being conducted in Portland, Oregon and also in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Testifying against the mechanic was an aircraft mechanic and helicopter pilot who performed maintenance on the helicopter in 1996, a Mr. Paul Matero. Mr. Matero became involved in the disassembly, sheet metal repair, and inspection of the helicopter. He testified to the irregularities in the helicopter's structure outlined above, and he further testified that during the maintenance he performed in 1996, there was no drilling or work on the beam caps or engine mounts, i.e., the items on which irregularities were discovered.

The next witness was the owner of the helicopter, James Crawford, who was the employer of the mechanic at the time the work was performed in 1994. Mr. Crawford testified that he was not present at all times during the work conducted in 1994, although he did visit the work site several times a week during the course of the repair work.

The last witness who testified about his visits to the work site in 1994 was Mr. Hicks, an FAA Maintenance Inspector. However, Mr. Hicks testified that at the time he inspected the helicopter, it was not in a disassembled condition and neither the beam caps nor the engine mounts had been installed.

Mr. Crawford, the helicopter owner, testified that during 1996, when the helicopter was undergoing maintenance, he was present when Mr. Matero discovered discrepancies in the helicopter, which were characterized as "hidden damage."

The last witness to testify for the Administrator was Robert Bilak, an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector. Mr. Bilak reviewed exhibits that were admitted into evidence including photographs of the helicopter as well as the helicopter's structural repair manual. The structural repair manual contained cautionary instructions concerning the drilling of rivets and the avoidance of causing elongation of holes or damage to fittings. Based upon a review of the provisions of the structural repair manual and also after examining the helicopter's affected parts, Mr. Bilak opined that the mechanic had failed to follow proper methods, techniques and practices when working on those parts. Consequently, it was Mr. Bilak's opinion that the mechanic did not return the aircraft to service in an acceptable original condition. Mr. Bilak further opined that the mechanic had failed to follow acceptable techniques and practices with the result that the helicopter was not in an airworthy condition.

An expert testifying on behalf of the mechanic was Mr. Thayer, the holder of an Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic Certificate with Inspection Authorization since 1971. Mr. Thayer testified with respect to the scope of an annual inspection and that it would include an inspection of fittings, including, among other things, the tailboom attach fittings, it being Mr. Thayer's opinion that if discrepancies charged by the Administrator had taken place in 1994, those discrepancies should been discovered during annual and/or 100 hour inspections of the helicopter in 1995, one year before they were discovered by Mr. Matero. Mr. Thayer did admit, that if an inspection revealed a crack in any attachment fitting for the helicopter's tailcone, the helicopter should be grounded.

On cross-examination, Mr. Thayer was shown a number of the Administrator's exhibits and asked to comment. In looking at the pilot's upper right hand tailboom attachment, Mr. Thayer agreed that the part displayed an elongated, misdrilled hole and a crack resulting in the part being unairworthy. Mr. Thayer testified that the damage to the part would not have been caused by stress to the aircraft and that the misdrilled condition would not have been visible to a person conducting either a 100-hour inspection or an annual inspection. Mr. Thayer made similar admissions with respect to another part removed from the helicopter exhibiting an over-drilled hole.

The mechanic testified on his own behalf relating that he began aviation maintenance in 1974 in the Army where he spent seven years and attended aviation maintenance school. He obtained his A & P Mechanic Certificate in 1981 and obtained an inspection authorization in 1993. When the mechanic was asked to examine and comment upon several components removed from the helicopter revealing a crack and/or misdrilled holes, the mechanic denied that at the time he placed an attachment fitting on the helicopter that a crack or any misdrilled holes existed. The mechanic also denied using a bushing when installing a part that was identified by the Administrator as being unserviceable and although the mechanic testified that the part was not serviceable when it was shown to him in the courtroom, it was in a serviceable condition in 1994 when he did the work. The mechanic also denied doing any drilling on the tailboom attachment identified as one of the Administrator's exhibits, the mechanic stating that the part was serviceable when he placed it on the aircraft.

The mechanic also testified that Mr. Hicks, the FAA inspector, who had visited the work site on two occasions, had inspected his work. The mechanic testified that it was his opinion that the damaged parts on the helicopter were caused by over-stressing the aircraft by picking up loads that were too heavy. The mechanic also testified that there were other logbook entries indicating that work had occurred in the areas that were the subject of the Administrator's Complaint, since after his work was done in 1994, work was performed in 1995 on (1) a bi-pod engine mount that was cracked and replaced, (2) a bi-pod engine mount that had loose bolts that were tightened, (3) there was tightening of additional loose bolts, and (4) there was replacement of the hi-locs top left tailboom attachment.

On cross-examination, the mechanic admitted that during annual and 100-hour inspections, the tailboom fittings are not required to be removed in which case, none of the rivets or fasteners would be removed. The mechanic also admitted that there were misdrilled holes present on several exhibits identified by the Administrator's lawyer and that after the fittings were installed, the misdrilled holes would not be visible on an inspection. Examining logbook entries for the helicopter from 1989 forward, the mechanic also admitted that there were no maintenance records showing work on the tailboom attachments other than his work.

Mr. Bilak, an FAA Inspector, was called as a rebuttal witness. He testified that Mr. Hicks (the FAA Maintenance Inspector who was present during the 1994 work) never field-approved any major work and would not have done so for these repairs. Also, Mr. Hicks testified that he had never issued a field-approval for these major repairs.

After considering the evidence before him, Judge Geraghty found that the Administrator had proven violations of FAR § 43.13(a) and (b). However, the Judge reduced the sanction from a revocation to a suspension of 225 days. Although the Administrator sought a revocation of the mechanic's certificate, Judge Geraghty noted that there was no support for that position in cases decided by the NTSB; nor was there support for that sanction in the FAA's Sanction Guidance Table. While the Judge noted that the FAA may be entitled to deference in the choice of sanctions where supported by Board precedent, the Judge chose not to follow an argument advanced by the FAA attorney that returning an aircraft to service in this condition was analogous to falsifying a record thereby justifying revocation of his certificate. After considering all of the evidence before him, Judge Geraghty found that a suspension of 225 days was the proper sanction. On appeal, the Members of the NTSB affirmed the decision of Judge Geraghty.

Administrator v. Gardner, NTSB Order No. EA-4906 (August 21, 2001).