| NOTE: An actual photographic copy of this report is also available here in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). It is approximately one megabyte long and takes several minutes to download over a dial-up connection. |
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 independence Ave., S W
Washington D.C. 20591
FEB 17 1998
The Honorable Sam Brownback
United States Senator
225 North Market
Wichita, Kansas 67202
Dear Senator Brownback:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of Mr. Bill Bainbridge concerning his requestfor a copy of a staff report prepared by Mr. Bill O'Brien of our Aircraft MaintenanceDivision.
Enclosed is a copy of the "Staff Report on the Enforcement Action AgainstSpecialty Products, Inc.," as requested.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. A. Bradley Mims, AssistantAdministrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277.
/signed/
Thomas E. Stuckey
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
Enclosures
Transmitted Correspondence
cc: Washington Office
STAFF REPORT
ON THE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
AGAINST
B&C SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC.
prepared by
Bill O’Brien
AFS-340
9/16/97
SUBJECT: REVIEW B&C COMPLAINT
TO: Leo Weston, Acting Manager, AFS-300 through Gene Fowler, Manager, AFS-340
FROM: Bill O’Brien, AFS-340
OVERVIEW
At the request of the Acting Manager of AFS-300, Mr. Leo Weston, I was asked to reviewthe public complaint to the Administrator that occurred at the "Meet the Boss"section at Oshkosh, WI on August 2, 1997 during the EAA Convention. The complaint wasraised by Mr. William Bainbridge, President of B&C Specialty Products, inc., ofNewton, KS. (See Attachment 1) The complaint is as follows:
On June 24, a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was sent to B&C specialty products,Inc. of Newton Kansas. The Notice stated that B&C Specialty violated Section 21.303(a)of the Federal Aviation Regulations because B&C sold an non-PMA approved alternator,model L40 and regulator, model LR3-14, to Mr. Christopher LeMay, an owner of a Piper Pa-18- 150. This violation of section 21.303(a) is based on the fact that B&C suppliedthe purchaser with sample copies of FAA Form 337 that showed that the L40 alternator andLR3-14 regulator was previously field approved by the FAA for other installations in typecertificated aircraft. Mr. Bainbridge denies the fact that he is selling unapproved parts.(See Attachment 2, Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty.)
Review of Facts:
1. On B&C specialty products L 40 Alternator and LR3B 14 Regulator installationinstructions at the bottom of the page it clearly states that this part (L 40 Alternator)is not STC’d and is sold only for amateur built aircraft only. (See Attachment 3,Alternator and Regulator installation instructions)
2. A phone call to Mr. Bainbridge, president of B&C specialty products was made on9/15/97.1 asked if the copies of the Form 337 were sent with the invoice for the parts inquestion. Mr. Bainbridge stated the sample FAA Forms 337 were not sent along with theinvoice for the altemator as the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty states because thesample Form 337 were sent to a Mr. Chris LeMay, of Soldotna, AK before the alternator wasshipped.. Mr. Bainbridge’s statement was confirmed by a telephone conversation I had withFAA inspector Grant Chapman of the Anchorage Flight Standards District Office. I asked Mr.Bainbridge to supply me a notarized statement that the FAA Forms 337 were not part of theinvoice for the items in question. He complied and FAX me on 9/16/97 a notarized statementwhich stated that the sample Form 337 were sent to Chris LeMay prior to the purchase ofthe alternator and regulator. (see Attachment 4, Notarized statement)
3. If the sample previously approved (field approval) Fonn 337s, were shipped with thealternator/regulator or invoice the Form 337 the Form 337 would not be justify the factthat this was proof that B&C Specialty was producing non PMA parts for typecertificated aircraft for the following reasons:
a. Each Form 337 when Block 7 is signed and the aircraft or component part is approvedfor return to service the form become a matter of public record and is available toeveryone.
b. The sample Form 337 that B&C provided were not altered in any way. Such asdeletion of the Block 1&2 information so the new purchaser could list his name andaircraft information in Block I and 2 of the Form 337. (See Attachment 5)
c. Any previously approved Form 337 can be used as "acceptable data" inaccordance with FAA Order 8300.10, Volume 2, Chapter I, page 1-1, paragraph 5-9 to forththe basis for a Field Approval for a major repair or major alteration such as theinstallation of a non-PMA approved alternator. This is a long standing FAA policy. (SeeAttachment 6)
d. The B&C alternator installation was field approved on 4/27/97 by the FAAAnchorage FSDO, FAA airworthiness inspector, Mr. Grant Chapman (See Attachment 7).
Analysis:
1. I can find no evidence that B&C Specialty offered his products as a PMA approvedpart for TC products. In fact B&C went out of their way to print a warning on theirinstallation instructions that the alternator and regulator were only to be used onamateur built aircraft. FAR section 21.303(a) was not violated by B&C.
2. The fact that "previously field approved Form 337" are used as acceptabledata to form a bases for field approval has been FAA policy for at least the last 20 years(e.g. Tundra Tire Installations).
3. The alternator installation was granted a Field Approval by the FAA which in factdid "approve" the part. If the FAA field office did not approve the installationthen the alternator installation would be considered an unapproved installation and wouldbe a violation of section 21.303,
4 I have discuss this matter with Mr. Ken Reilly of AVR-20 SUPs Branch on 9/15/97 andhe agreed that a violation of section 21.303 (a) did not take place.
5. On 9/15/971 called Mr. John Curry, of ACE -7 the lawyer who is handling this EIR(97CE 430010) He told me that this enforcement action was cleared at the highest levels inWashington (Carey Terasaki, and Peter Lynch of AGC-200). I told him out of courtesy that Iwill recommend that the violation be dropped due to insufficient grounds to prove aviolation of 21.303 occurred . He got upset and said that Flight Standards does not havethe right to interpret the rules only GC does and a complaint to the administrator atOshkosh does not mean that the entire enforcement action should be question. I again toldhim that this was a courtesy call and that it was my intent, based on my review, was torecommend the violation be dropped Mr. Curry said this matter should be settled in courtbecause there was no existing court decision was on the books. I said it would be a littletough on a small business man to pay 20 to 30 thousand dollars in legal fees to find outhe was tight. Mr. Curry said that’s how the system works. I ended the conversationpolitely.
6. The reason more and more owners of older T.C. aircraft are turning to amateur-builtand ultralight manufacturers for replacement parts is due to the fact that many of the TCmanufacturers who built aircraft from 1930-1970 time frame no longer support these olderaircraft or are no longer in business. New or rebuilt 40 amp generators which wereoriginally installed on the PA 18 aircraft are no longer made or available. The FAA Fieldapproval process provides a method to keep the older aircraft in the General AviationFleet airworthy.
7. Safety and the airworthiness of the B&C Specialty alteration to the PA-18 arenot an issue in the FAA enforcement action against B&C Specialty..
8. There are many products being sold for installation on aircraft that meet nospecific FAA approval. For example tires, batteries, seals, tail skis, etc.
Recommendations:
I recommend that the FAA Administrator or her representative request General Council tocancel the violation proceedings against B&C Specialty for the following reasons:
1. FAA case is based on the fact that the sample Forms 337 were sent along with theinvoice which would prove that B&C Specialty intent was to sell un-approved parts toType Certificated aircraft.
2. Mr. Brainbridge signed a notarized statement that the sample Form 337 were sentprior to Mr. LeMay purchasing the alternator/regulator from B&C Specialty.
3. Mr. Grant Chapman, FAA inspector who field approved the B&C Specialtyinstallation on Mr. LeMay aircraft confirms Mr. Brainbridge statement in item #2.
4. Providing sample previously approved Form 337 to the local FAA inspector to show abases for approved data is not only a sound practice authorized in FAA Order 8300.10 butis actively encouraged by the FAA field inspectors
5. The B&C Specialty Alternator Regulator installation was field approved by theFAA on 4/27/97. Which "approved" the alternator and regulator for the TCaircraft.
