曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
not officially reported. As the agency is aware, most enforcement cases are
settled without an administrative hearing and therefore there is no reported
decision. Nevertheless, such cases are a matter of public record and
Complainant requests the FAA to take administrative notice of their existence.
Through these actions, the FAA and NTSB have clearly established that proper
maintenance and alterations are so essential to continued airworthiness that
those who fail to comply with their regulatory obligations are subjected to
enforcement action.
In Administrator v. Aero Lectrics, Inc., 6 NTSB 1085, 1088 (1989) (IOP 15), the
NTSB concluded that a repair station that failed to perform an overhaul for an air
carrier in accordance with the component manufacturer’s overhaul manual
violated section 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 (or overhaul) manual.
In the matter of Empire Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-13, Docket No.
CP98NM0011 (June 8, 2002) (IOP 16), it was held that Empire violated section
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 if
there was any damage in excess of the allowable limits for patching and
insertion, replacement of the engine mount was required. 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
18
manuals” and affirmed the civil penalty. The Administrator denied Empire’s
appeal and affirmed the law judge’ decision. Id.
In Administrator v. Missouri Aerotech Industries, Inc., FAA Order No. EA-3999,
Docket No. SE-13249 (October 15, 1993) (IOP 17), 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 Safety Board stated:
Further, we 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. (emphasis added.) Id. at page 12
In Administrator v. Alphin, 4 NTSB 23 at 26 (1984)(IOP18), the NTSB held that:
To begin with, the 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 law is clear—maintenance is to be performed in accordance with the
methods, techniques and practices set forth in the manufacturer’s maintenance
or overhaul manual of the article being maintained. This duty applies whether
the article is an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, accessory,
instrument or a component part thereof.
b) Operations with improperly repaired components
Operating with an improperly repaired or damaged component renders the entire
aircraft unairworthy. Each of the operating rules prohibits such operation.
Therefore, performing component maintenance in accordance with the applicable
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料8(25)
