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

NTSB concluded that a repair station that failed to perform an overhaul for an air
carrier in accordance with the accessory manufacturer’s overhaul manual
violated § 43.13(a). The Administrator noted:
The record establishes that respondent overhauled the blower
without the aid of either an overhaul manual or such other technical
data as would assure that the work would be correctly or properly
accomplished.
* * * * *
A repair station such as respondent is permitted to do maintenance
work based on technical data supplied by the operator usually in
the form of the maintenance manual.
Similarly, In the matter of Empire Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-13, Docket
No. CP98NM0011 (June 8, 2002) (IOP 14), an administrative law judge held that
Empire violated § 43.13(a) when “the left engine mount of Empire’s Fairchild F-
27F aircraft was repaired in a manner not specified by either the Fairchild
Structural Repair Manual (SRM) or Overhaul Manual (OM).” The Fairchild
overhaul and structural repair manuals permitted only two methods of repair for
non-negligible damage to the engine mount, patching, and insertion. Further, the
manuals stated that any damage in excess of the allowable limits for patching
and insertion required replacement of the engine mount. Empire ignored the
Fairchild manuals and performed a “sleeve” weld repair on the engine mount.
The law judge stated that Empire was “obligated to follow the terms of governing
manuals” and affirmed the civil penalty. The Administrator denied Empire’s
appeal and affirmed the law judge’s decision.
Furthermore, in Administrator v. Missouri Aerotech Industries, Inc., FAA Order
No. EA-3999, Docket No. SE-13249 (October 15, 1993) (IOP 15), the
Administrator appealed from the law judge’s decision not to revoke a repair
station’s certificate when it consistently performed numerous repairs on
navigational equipment without the benefit of the manufacturer’s manuals or
other approved or acceptable data. In reversing the law judge’s decision and
affirming the revocation of Respondent’s repair station certificate, the NTSB
stated:
14
[W]e agree with the Administrator that the impact on aviation safety
of such unauthorized repairs is not trivial. The reliability of a repair
station’s work depends in large part upon its adherence to the
approved techniques and procedures which are set forth in
published technical data. Id. at page 12 (emphasis added).
Finally, in Administrator v. Alphin, 4 NTSB 23 at 26 (1984)(IOP16), the NTSB
held that:
[T]he overhaul manual for this engine, in relevant part, specifies
only a visual inspection of camshaft ‘journals for scoring,
deformation and excessive wear’ and of ‘cam lobes for profile wear,
scoring and pitting’…and it does not, apparently for proprietary
reasons, provide the information needed to do so. While we do not
take issue with the FAA inspector’s opinion that a better overhaul
might be accomplished if testing not dictated by the overhaul
manual were undertaken, the regulatory standard is not what an
inspector believes should be done in connection with an
overhaul, but, rather what the Administrator has specified,
through approved overhaul manuals and other documents,
must be done. (emphasis added.)
The holding in this case demonstrates that under Title 14 CFR the ICA
contains information essential to the continued airworthiness of the typecertificated
product.
The law is clear—a repair station must have current manufacturer’s maintenance
information at the time of certification and each time it performs work. In
addition, maintenance must generally be performed in accordance with the
methods, techniques and practices set forth in the pertinent manufacturer’s
maintenance or overhaul manual. This duty applies whether the article is an
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, accessory, instrument or a part
thereof.
2. Operations with Improperly Repaired Appliances
Operating an aircraft with a damaged or improperly repaired appliance renders
the aircraft unairworthy. Each of the operating rules found in parts 91,121, 125
and 135 prohibits such operation. Therefore, performing maintenance on all
parts of the aircraft in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual is
essential to the continued airworthiness of the aircraft.
In the Matter of Warbelow’s Air Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3, Docket
No. CP97AL0012 (February 3, 2000)(IOP 17), the FAA imposed a civil penalty
on an air carrier for operating an unairworthy aircraft contrary to §§ 91.7(a) and
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料6(99)