曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

135.25(a)(2). Specifically, the two aircraft flew for almost 1,400 hours with
15
improperly modified and repaired fuel pumps. In affirming the law judge’s finding
of unairworthy operation due to the fuel pumps being in an unsafe operating
condition, the Administrator stated:
The Romec manual for the fuel pumps provides: ‘Avoid
application of excessive torque when tightening valve cover
mounting screws. Tighten screws progressively to 29-31 lb.-
in. torque.’ (emphasis in original). Rimer did not have a copy of the
Romec manual when he modified the two fuel pumps. He did not
know the proper torque values and did not use a torque wrench. It
is undisputed that if the screws are not tightened properly the fuel
pumps may leak, resulting in a fire hazard.
In the matter of USAir, FAA Order No. 92-48, Docket No. CP91NM0183 (July 22,
1992) (IOP 18), the FAA found that USAir operated an unairworthy aircraft
contrary to §121.153(a)(2). The aircraft had sustained damage to its nose gear
water deflector during pushback from the gate. Because the aircraft no longer
conformed to its type certificate, the Administrator affirmed the law judge’s finding
that the aircraft had been operated in an unairworthy manner.
Persons who design, produce, operate and maintain civil aircraft are responsible
for ensuring airworthiness. Parker Hannifin’s denial of Sonico’s request for ICA
is contrary to the regulatory obligations on which safety is based.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Complainant requests that the FAA initiate an
informal investigation and thereafter issue an order finding that Parker Hannifin is
in violation of §§ 21.50(b), 25.1529 and part 25, appendix H. The Complainant
has provided the Administrator with the necessary IOPs establishing these
violations.
If the FAA requires additional information to establish the violation, Complainant
urges the Administrator to issue an order of investigation in accordance with part
13, subpart F. A formal investigation would allow the Administrator to name a
Presiding Officer, issue subpoenas, take depositions, hold an evidentiary public
hearing and issue a written report of the investigation.
Complainant urges the FAA to consider this Complaint in the broadest possible
terms. In the Association’s view, it would make little sense for the Administrator
to issue a ruling favorable to Sonico without recognizing that the same issues
apply throughout the aviation maintenance industry. Ultimately, Complainant
requests that the Administrator enforce the ICA requirements against design
approval holders as diligently as it enforces them against maintenance providers
and operators.
16
LIST OF ITEMS OF PROOF (IOP)
• IOP 1 – Sonico, Inc.’s repair station certificate, issued January 17,
1985
• IOP 2 – Sonico, Inc.’s ratings and operations specifications (multiple
effective dates)
• IOP 3 – Parker Hannifin Corporation Parts Manufacturer Approval
Holder No. PQ0658NE, dated September 13, 2005
• IOP 4 – Airbus Type Certificate, No. A43NM, dated March 19, 2007
(covers both Airbus planes)
• IOP 5 – Sonico, Inc.’s E-mail to Parker Hannifin Corporation requesting
overhaul/component maintenance manuals for the Dual Temperature
Sensor, part no. 055-019-001, dated May 16, 2006
• IOP 6 – Sonico, Inc.’s request to Parker Hannifin Corporation for ICA
data for the Dual Temperature Sensor, part no. 055-019-001, dated
July 3, 2006
• IOP 7 – Sonico, Inc.’s E-mail to Thomas Piraino requesting Parker
Hannifin Corporation’s reply to July 3 & August 31, 2006 letter
• IOP 8 – Sonico, Inc.’s E-mail to Steve Vaughn requesting Parker
Hannifin Corporation’s reply to July 3, 2006 letter
• IOP 9 – FAA policy statement, dated July 12, 2005, “Safety- A Shared
Responsibility- New Direction for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for
Transport Airplanes.”
• IOP 10 – FAA legal interpretation, dated December 13, 1999 (Whitlow
letter)
• IOP 11 –FAA Order 8110.54, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
Responsibilities, Requirements and Contents, Issued July, 1 2005.
• IOP 12 – In the Matter of Watts, FAA Order No. 91-8, served April 11,
1988
• IOP 13 – Administrator v. Aero Lectrics, Inc., 6 NTSB 1088 (1989).
17
• IOP 14 – In the matter of Empire Airlines, Inc., Docket No.
CP98NM0011, FAA Order No. 2000-13 served June 8, 2000.
• IOP 15 – Administrator v. Missouri Aerotech Industries, Inc., Docket
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料6(100)