Data Plate swapper pleads guilty

[Cyclic Hotline]

I'm not sure if I can recall a previous conviction for this activity, although it has reputedly been going on throughout the industry for years. I seem to recall a story here on PPRuNe about someone selling a 206 data plate and records on eBay recently. British man pleads guilty to attempted aircraft parts fraud

ROBERT SORRELL | BRISTOL HERALD COURIER (https://www.heraldcourier.com/users/profile/Robert%20Sorrell)

Jun 17, 2020 Updated Jun 17, 2020


A British man, who owned a helicopter sales and repair facility in Bristol, Tennessee, has pleaded guilty after authorities said he tried to fraudulently sell a damaged helicopter.

Richard Paul Harper, 67, pleaded guilty Tuesday and will be sentenced in October in U.S. District Court in Knoxville, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. He faces up to 10 years in prison on a charge of attempted aircraft parts fraud.

Harper owned and operated Apple Helicopter International, which had offices in Bristol and Great Britain. He was charged following a lengthy investigation by the Inspector General’s Office of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

At one time, Apple held a license from the Federal Aviation Administration. Harper was engaged in purchasing, refurbishing and selling used helicopters and helicopter parts. Apple International’s American office was located on Industrial Drive in the Bristol Industrial Park.

Harper was born and grew up in Norwich, United Kingdom, ran a haulage company in the 1980s, but a love of flying helicopters led him to develop a business buying and selling Bell helicopters, according to a 2012 article in the British newspaper Eastern Daily Press.

When his business took off, Harper moved to the U.S., but later returned to the U.K. by 2012, the newspaper said.

In his plea agreement, Harper admitted to obtaining a Bell helicopter with significant underbelly damage. Instead of performing necessary, costly repairs, the fuselage of the helicopter was switched with the fuselage of another helicopter that previously crashed in New Jersey, the agreement states. The original data plates were affixed to that helicopter.

https://i.connatix.com/s3/connatix-uploads/9becb5dc-d514-4196-99a8-85a04212e715/8030.jpg?mode=stretch&connatiximg=true&scale=both&height=317&width=563 (javascript:void(0))A criminal complaint says Harper coordinated the fraudulent combination of the fuselage from one damaged helicopter with the nose and tail from the other damaged helicopter.

When doing so, Harper switched or caused the switching of the data plate from one damaged helicopter to the fuselage from another damaged helicopter, the complaint states.

Harper attempted to sell the fraudulently altered helicopter to a fictitious client of a broker, who was actually an undercover federal agent.

The complaint said Harper also sent a fraudulently obtained airworthiness certificate and documentation that misrepresented facts, such as the true age and actual hours of service of the helicopter. The complaint also says Harper used the names of FAA-issued mechanic’s licenses to provide the impression that work on the helicopter had been certified and inspected.

In connection with the attempted sale, Harper solicited the wire transfer of proceeds from the sale to a bank account in the U.K., the complaint states.

“Fraudulent activity of any kind is reprehensible and detrimental, but fraudulent activity of this kind that poses a particular danger to those who fly the aircraft and are on the ground is particularly egregious,” said U.S. Attorney J. Douglas Overbey. “I want to commend our law enforcement partners in this case for bringing the perpetrator of this fraud to justice.”
https://www.heraldcourier.com/news/local/british-man-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-aircraft-parts-fraud/article_1c38a9a3-110c-5d12-8c78-5fc3df68f581.html

[FH1100 Pilot]

Using the cab of one aircraft and the components of another aircraft used to be common practice in the industry until the FAA changed their mind a while back. But really, what would the harm be? There's no life-limit or even overhaul-interval on the cab. When we look at the "age" of a helicopter, it has more to do with what configuration it's in...if all of the pertinent mods have been done. I used to fly an early-SN 206B that had been a sprayer. And what sprayer hasn't been wrecked at least once? Oddly, it had a late-model instrument panel which was not "period-correct" (as my antique car friends say), and there were a few other configuration changes that made us wonder: Was it the actual fuselage? Did somebody go to all the trouble of cutting out the old instrument panel with the individual push-to-test caution lights and tiny pressure/temperature gauges and go to the trouble to install the late model panel, caution lights and gauges? Hmm.

Again, it hardly matters, because helicopter are a collection of components with various lifetimes. The cab is just the Christmas tree we hang all the ornaments on. So if you could buy a bare fuselage assembly from Bell (I'm sure there's a PN for it), and then stick the old tail boom and a bunch of airworthy components on it, and a data plate from the helicopter all the components came off...what's the harm? You'd have the old helicopter with a new cab. But nope! Not allowed anymore.

Sounds like Harper's case may be a tad more complicated than simply swapping out the fuselage from one 206 to another. Sounds like there's more to this story than that. Sounds like the feds were onto him for a long time - even going to far as to actually buying one of his aircraft. It would be interesting to know the whole story.

[Cyclic Hotline]

It was never allowed and has been actively pursued and enforced by the FAA and various other Agencies for years. If you were flying an upgraded 206, there is a very good possibility it may be a converted 206A as many of these incorporated the factory improvements that came with the evolution of the model. You could have easily checked your aircraft logbook to see if it had been modified in accordance with an STC or by referencing the 337's for any modifications that have been accomplished, and then you would have known the complete status of your helicopter.

How would you know that your airframe hasn't been crashed and incorrectly rebuilt or repaired? How would you know anything about its history or configuration if you didn't have the applicable records for the aircraft, but had records for another aircraft which was totally unrelated? Why bother keeping records at all? In fact, why license pilots or technicians, why train, certificate and maintain currency. Why not disband the FAA and just have a free for all. You could put any old engine in, perform any structural repair that you thought might be good enough, buy your parts from anywhere, use old parts from crashed machines, corroded old junk, timed out blades, just whatever you felt like and fake the paperwork as required. Rather than follow the carefully established global regulatory network built on years of experience (often bad) why not just throw it all away and join the protests at CHAZ in Seattle in support of aviation anarchy? In fact, if you went to Seattle you could share your opinions with the unemployed former Boeing employees from the 737 MAX program, who potentially shared a similar philosophy to yours.

Your user name might take you directly to an individual that did all of the above, got caught and skipped town. In the meantime, you should offer your services as an expert witness to one of these crooks that got busted - I'm sure the Judge will pay close attention to your opinion!

I personally think it's great when these guys get caught, and they deserve everything they get, as they screw up the entire business, just look at the Bell 204/UH-1 debacle twenty years ago. Why do they do it? To make loads of easy money!

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_45-2E.pdf

[wrench1]

I'm not sure if I can recall a previous conviction for this activity,
There's been a number of convictions on the rotor-wing side, TRE Aviation and Hansen in Guam to name a couple. And quite a few more on the plank-wing side. Unfortunately, the indictments/convictions of these types are never newsworthy stories. Plus the fact not all are permanently prohibited from aviation as some still operate afterwards. Have seen some really radical stuff out there over the years.

I personally think it's great when these guys get caught,
Agree 100%

[wrench1]

Using the cab of one aircraft and the components of another aircraft used to be common practice in the industry until the FAA changed their mind a while back.
Swapping components is one thing, swapping data tags between airframes is something completely different. Don't know who told you that, but the FAA didn't need to change their mind as it's been illegal to swap data plates since the original CAR days. It just wasn't enforced effectively until people started dying from it. However, there has always been a legal method to move data plates or rebuild from aircraft salvage if one were to follow it. Unfortunately, some prefer not to follow it and when they get caught it's time to pay the piper. As the rotor turns they say.

[nomorehelosforme]

And as Wrench kindly reminded me last time something of this was discussed here is the link.

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/628999-bell-206-data-plate-log-books.html

[Chris P Bacon]

A couple of years back, the same company was advertising engine components for sale. We informed them these parts were no longer authorised for use and had been withdrawn by the OEM, yet they continued to advertise them. Suddenly, one of our customers sent the same parts in to us to fit in his engine to save cost. He didn't get his money back and one of the parts is mounted on his desk as a reminder, things are cheap for a reason and not everything is what is seems, so check and check again.

[PEASACAKE]

A couple of years back, the same company was advertising engine components for sale. We informed them these parts were no longer authorised for use and had been withdrawn by the OEM, yet they continued to advertise them. Suddenly, one of our customers sent the same parts in to us to fit in his engine to save cost. He didn't get his money back and one of the parts is mounted on his desk as a reminder, things are cheap for a reason and not everything is what is seems, so check and check again.

Like you Chris P Bacon, many including myself have been watching him for years.

I am sure and hope the UK authorities will want to look at all the other "rebuilt" helicopters he has sold, including all component histories........................if anybody has purchased one of his "rebuilt" helicopters be prepared to be contacted by the authorities.

[helipixman]

Like you Chris P Bacon, many including myself have been watching him for years.

I am sure and hope the UK authorities will want to look at all the other "rebuilt" helicopters he has sold, including all component histories........................if anybody has purchased one of his "rebuilt" helicopters be prepared to be contacted by the authorities.
I am sure there will be quite alot for the UK authorities to look at, before his Apple International days he run another company R & M Helicopters in Norwich area, UK selling Bell 206 helicopters. I actually have a list of all the helicopters owned/sold by R & M deep in my heli archives.

[HeliAl]

R and M international during the 90’s sold more 2nd hand 206’s into Europe than any other company.
Most of them were sourced from Edwards Associates from Bristol Tennessee.
Edwards were the Bell preferred 2nd hand dealer and often carried out one off specialist work.

[rotormatic]

Here is the current FAA order on the subject...


https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8100.19.pdf

[FH1100 Pilot]

Long-winded, childish rant removed

Haven't been in the business very long, have you, Cyclic? If you had, you'd know that for eons, probably dating back to the VS-300, helicopters have had their data plates swapped from one airframe to another. It is said there are/were more Bell 47's flying than ever rolled off Bell's assembly lines. Same-same for the UH-1 and 206 series, I would imagine.

Cyclic, there's a lot to unpack in your childish rant that devolved into some political gibberish. But let's try!

First, I never said that the FAA approved or permitted anything. As with all FAR's, they only tell you what you *cannot* do. It wasn't until 2015 that the FAA finally issued the Advisory Circular specifying that -now- you cannot swap a date plate from one aircraft to another. Until 2015 this practice was, as I noted, fairly common. It was not necessarily dangerous or illegal.

You, Cyclic, for some reason automatically assume that everyone is dishonest (as dishonest as you, perhaps?) and would put together an aircraft of unapproved, uncertified or unairworthy parts, assembled by unlicensed mechanics and signed-off by bogus (or perhaps dead) IA's. You and both I know that it has happened. And it's not right, obviously.

But as I stated and as you're aware, helicopters are a collection of many parts with finite life-limits. All such parts need to have Component Historical Record cards that document where they've been and how much time is on them. Suppose you had a helicopter that had been in an accident and the cabin was damaged beyond economical repair? (We'll assume here that the crash was noted in the aircraft logbook.) What would or should stop you from buying a servicable cab and then attaching to it the necessary airworthy parts from the old ship to make it a complete aircraft? Are you saying that when an aircraft crashes, *every* part on it becomes scrap? Again, that's nonsense. As long as the appropritate inspections and repairs are carried out and documented, parts from crashed aircraft can certainly go back in service. Traceability is the key. As long as all the parts are yellow-tagged (serviceable) they can be installed on any aircraft. And finally, as long as the repaired/rebuilt aircraft conforms to its Type Certificate and is certified to that fact by an A&P/IA, then it's good to go. No?

By the way, the guy I worked for (the origin of my SN) did not do any dataplate swapping of any FH1100's. He didn't have to - he owned the Type Certificate. But we did occasionaly see customer aircraft come in that were "hybrids" that had obviously started life as a different serial number airframe. See, Hiller in their wisdom hid other datatags on their airframes and *we* knew where they were! (Back in the 1980's there was a guy down in central Florida who was infamous for building and selling bogus FH1100's, but he did eventually go to jail.)

Point being, "building an aircraft around a data plate" was once common practice with certain types. And it was not immoral or inherently unsafe. But it is prohibited now. I know a guy who, long prior to 2015 bought an old two-seat fixed-wing taildragger from the 1940's that had been crashed - not bad, just tripped up on its nose on landing. My friend did a beautiful rebuild/restoration on it - literallly from the rivets out. Lots of money spent. When he went to re-register it, he discovered that the previous owner had listed it as "Destroyed" and the FAA said, "Nope!" Oopsie! The road back from "Destroyed" is damn near impossible. My friend currently has an interesting piece of (expensive) lawn art. In the past, he would have simply bought the data plate off of a same-model wreck that had not been listed as "Destroyed" and slapped that data plate on his rebuilt airframe. Who would've known and what would it have mattered?

Rebuilding aircraft that have been wrecked is a business that some people have specialized in for many years. As long as everything is properly documented, and airworthy, traceable parts are used, there's usually nothing wrong with it. However there are some "shady" characters out there and sadly, not every aircraft buyer does his due-diligence.

[Bell_ringer]

I guess how immoral and inherently unsafe it is depends on how much the buyer really knows about the “aircraft” they’re buying.

[wrench1]

you'd know that for eons, probably dating back to the VS-300, helicopters have had their data plates swapped from one airframe to another. [...] It was not necessarily dangerous or illegal.
Don't know where you keep getting your info, but while you may think it was previously okay to swap data plates it never has been legal for eons as well. You can rant all you want but it doesn't change the facts:

CAR 1.2321 (1938): (a) The identification plate and other identifying information required under the pertinent airworthiness requirements of Parts 04, 05, 06 or 07, as the case may be.

CAR 1.50 (1955): (a) Each product manufactured under the terms of a type or production certificate shall display permanently such data as may be required to show its identity.

FAR Part 45.13(e): No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.

The only thing not done on a regular basis by the CAA/FAA was enforce that rule. The funny thing is that the reason for all the FAA attention to this matter over the past 15 years, to include the recent Order issued in 2018 on salvage/destroyed aircraft, is due to those with your attitude that it's always been okay to swap plates when in fact it never was. Is there a legal way to swap data plates, sure. But it requires FAA approval and in some cases an LOA from the current TC holder. Just as it always has been. Been there and done that a number of times. And yes, for the record, have been in the aviation mx business for a long time and have parleyed the topic of data plates on many different levels over the years. Whether you want to believe or not is of no matter, it is what it is.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Apologies for the long post here, but this details why you're surmising that swapping a data plate isn't wrong, bad or has any significant impact.



Using the airframe from an aircraft and rebuilding it has never been a problem if you follow the correct processes and is something I am intimately familiar with. The process is straightforward, entirely legal and has always been a part of aviation. There are even processes to build up former military aircraft from parts and issue them serial numbers, likewise for returning aircraft to service if their records are lost and destroyed.

What isn't legal is to remove the data plate from one aircraft and put it on another airframe with no approval or record of the change. It never has been - thank you Wrench 1 for your CAR reference. This has been going on illegally for years, and the more of these guys get caught and thrown in jail, the better. The reason it is so prevalent in the helicopter business is the rewards are huge, and in many cases cheap and easily procured military models provide very similar (or even identical) airframes to use as donors. I know who many of these people are, would never touch anything associated with them, but they are good at covering their tracks. I have discovered some of their actions, and have been involved with FAA and FBI investigations of their activities when they are detected, including bogus (timed out, and otherwise modified) blades and components. They remain a major risk to the unwary who may be paying top dollars for a low dollar imitation, that also may have it's C of A revoked if detected.



So, let's take a quick review of the regulatory process in the US, so we can all understand clearly why this is entirely in conflict with the entire FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). We'll go from beginning to end, as some of it will come back to bite you in multiple ways.



We are assuming the initial Aircraft has been appropriately designed, certified and manufactured in accordance with the FARs;

I'll let you reach your own conclusions.


1.

FAA FAR §1.1 General definitions. - Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.


2.

§45.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes the requirements for—

(a) Marking products and articles manufactured under—

(1) A type certificate;

(2) A production approval as defined under part 21 of this chapter; and

(3) The provisions of an agreement between the United States and another country or jurisdiction for the acceptance of products and articles; and

(b) Nationality and registration marking of aircraft registered in the United States in accordance with part 47.

3.

§45.11 Marking of products.

(a) Aircraft. A manufacturer of aircraft covered under §21.182 of this chapter must mark each aircraft by attaching a fireproof identification plate that—

(1) Includes the information specified in §45.13 using an approved method of fireproof marking;

(2) Must be secured in such a manner that it will not likely be defaced or removed during normal service, or lost or destroyed in an accident; and

4.


§45.13 Identification data.

(a) The identification required by §45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:

(1) Builder's name.

(2) Model designation.

(3) Builder's serial number.

(4) Type certificate number, if any.

(5) Production certificate number, if any.

(6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.
--------

(8) Any other information the FAA finds appropriate.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section, on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub, without the approval of the FAA.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may remove or install any identification plate required by §45.11, without the approval of the FAA.

(d) Persons performing work under the provisions of Part 43 of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA—

(1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub; or

(2) Remove an identification plate required by §45.11 when necessary during maintenance operations.

(e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.

5.

§43.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any—

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;

6.


§43.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.

(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless—

(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and

(2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under part 21 of this chapter.

(b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.

7.

§43.5 Approval for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

No person may approve for return to service any aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(a) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as appropriate, has been made;

(b) The repair or alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator has been executed in a manner prescribed by the Administrator; and

(c) If a repair or an alteration results in any change in the aircraft operating limitations or flight data contained in the approved aircraft flight manual, those operating limitations or flight data are appropriately revised and set forth as prescribed in §91.9 of this chapter.



8.

§43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, §135.411(a)(1), and §135.419 of this chapter).

(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.


9.

§43.12 Maintenance records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration.

(a) No person may make or cause to be made:

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part;

(2) Any reproduction, for fraudulent purpose, of any record or report under this part; or

(3) Any alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any record or report under this part.

(b) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking the applicable airman, operator, or production certificate, Technical Standard Order Authorization, FAA-Parts Manufacturer Approval, or Product and Process Specification issued by the Administrator and held by that person.


Appendix A to Part 43—Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance

(a) Major alterations—(1) Airframe major alterations. Alterations of the following parts and alterations of the following types, when not listed in the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major alterations:

(i) Wings.

(ii) Tail surfaces.

(iii) Fuselage.

(b) Major repairs—(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.



10.

Appendix B to Part 43—Recording of Major Repairs and Major Alterations

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this appendix, each person performing a major repair or major alteration shall—

(1) Execute FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate;

(2) Give a signed copy of that form to the aircraft owner; and

(3) Forward a copy of that form to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, within 48 hours after the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is approved for return to service.

(b) For major repairs made in accordance with a manual or specifications acceptable to the Administrator, a certificated repair station may, in place of the requirements of paragraph (a)—

(1) Use the customer's work order upon which the repair is recorded;

(2) Give the aircraft owner a signed copy of the work order and retain a duplicate copy for at least two years from the date of approval for return to service of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance;

(3) Give the aircraft owner a maintenance release signed by an authorized representative of the repair station and incorporating the following information:

(i) Identity of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller or appliance.

(ii) If an aircraft, the make, model, serial number, nationality and registration marks, and location of the repaired area.

(iii) If an airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, give the manufacturer's name, name of the part, model, and serial numbers (if any); and

(4) Include the following or a similarly worded statement—

“The aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance identified above was repaired and inspected in accordance with current Regulations of the Federal Aviation Agency and is approved for return to service.

Pertinent details of the repair are on file at this repair station under Order No. ___,

Date
Signed

For signature of authorized representative)

Repair station name) (Certificate No.)

____________.”

(Address)

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this appendix, for a major repair or major alteration made by a person authorized in §43.17, the person who performs the major repair or major alteration and the person authorized by §43.17 to approve that work shall execute an FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate. A completed copy of that form shall be—

(1) Given to the aircraft owner; and

(2) Forwarded to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Registration Branch, Post Office Box 25504, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, within 48 hours after the work is inspected.

(d) For extended-range fuel tanks installed within the passenger compartment or a baggage compartment, the person who performs the work and the person authorized to approve the work by §43.7 shall execute an FAA Form 337 in at least triplicate. A completed copy of that form shall be—

(1) Placed on board the aircraft as specified in §91.417 of this chapter;

(2) Given to the aircraft owner; and

(3) Forwarded to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Registration Branch, , Post Office Box 25724, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, within 48 hours after the work is inspected.


11.

§21.182 Aircraft identification.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each applicant for an airworthiness certificate under this subpart must show that his aircraft is identified as prescribed in §45.11.


§21.173 Eligibility.

Any registered owner of a U.S.-registered aircraft (or the agent of the owner) may apply for an airworthiness certificate for that aircraft. An application for an airworthiness certificate must be made in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA, and may be submitted to any FAA office.


§21.175 Airworthiness certificates: classification.

(a) Standard airworthiness certificates are airworthiness certificates issued for aircraft type certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category, and for manned free balloons, and for aircraft designated by the FAA as special classes of aircraft.


§21.177 Amendment or modification.

An airworthiness certificate may be amended or modified only upon application to the FAA.



§21.179 Transferability.

An airworthiness certificate is transferred with the aircraft.


§21.181 Duration.

(a) Unless sooner surrendered, suspended, revoked, or a termination date is otherwise established by the FAA, airworthiness certificates are effective as follows:

(1) Standard airworthiness certificates, special airworthiness certificates—primary category, and airworthiness certificates issued for restricted or limited category aircraft are effective as long as the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in accordance with Parts 43 and 91 of this chapter and the aircraft are registered in the United States.

(i) The aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft;

(ii) The aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except for those alterations performed in accordance with an applicable consensus standard and authorized by the aircraft's manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;



12.

§21.182 Aircraft identification.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each applicant for an airworthiness certificate under this subpart must show that his aircraft is identified as prescribed in §45.11.

(For reference)

§45.11 Marking of products.

(a) Aircraft. A manufacturer of aircraft covered under §21.182 of this chapter must mark each aircraft by attaching a fireproof identification plate that—

(1) Includes the information specified in §45.13 using an approved method of fireproof marking;

(For reference)


§45.13 Identification data.

(a) The identification required by §45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:

(1) Builder's name.

(2) Model designation.

(3) Builder's serial number.

(4) Type certificate number, if any.

(5) Production certificate number, if any.

(For reference)

§45.10 Marking.

No person may mark a product or article in accordance with this subpart unless—

(a) That person produced the product or article —

(1) Under part 21, subpart F, G, K, or O of this chapter; or

So now, let's get down to operating your bogus aircraft;


13.

§91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.


§91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in §121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

(c) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter.

(d) Any person taking off or landing a helicopter certificated under part 29 of this chapter at a heliport constructed over water may make such momentary flight as is necessary for takeoff or landing through the prohibited range of the limiting height-speed envelope established for the helicopter if that flight through the prohibited range takes place over water on which a safe ditching can be accomplished and if the helicopter is amphibious or is equipped with floats or other emergency flotation gear adequate to accomplish a safe emergency ditching on open water.


§91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required.

(a) Except as provided in §91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable operations specifications issued under §21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the operations specifications issued under §21.197(c), or an authorization under §91.611) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may only be obtained upon application to the responsible Flight Standards office.

(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in §47.31(c), a Certificate of Aircraft registration as provided in part 48, or a registration certification issued under the laws of a foreign country.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under §91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft with a fuel tank installed within the passenger compartment or a baggage compartment unless the installation was accomplished pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, and a copy of FAA Form 337 authorizing that installation is on board the aircraft.

(d) No person may operate a civil airplane (domestic or foreign) into or out of an airport in the United States unless it complies with the fuel venting and exhaust emissions requirements of part 34 of this chapter.


§91.403 General.

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under §91.409(e) have been complied with.


§91.405 Maintenance required.

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) Shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service;


§91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.


§91.417 Maintenance records.

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

(c) The owner or operator shall make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In addition, the owner or operator shall present Form 337 described in paragraph (d) of this section for inspection upon request of any law enforcement officer.

(d) When a fuel tank is installed within the passenger compartment or a baggage compartment pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, a copy of FAA Form 337 shall be kept on board the modified aircraft by the owner or operator.


§91.419 Transfer of maintenance records.

Any owner or operator who sells a U.S.-registered aircraft shall transfer to the purchaser, at the time of sale, the following records of that aircraft, in plain language form or in coded form at the election of the purchaser, if the coded form provides for the preservation and retrieval of information in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(a) The records specified in §91.417(a)(2). (Reference above)

(b) The records specified in §91.417(a)(1) which are not included in the records covered by paragraph (a) of this section, except that the purchaser may permit the seller to keep physical custody of such records. However, custody of records by the seller does not relieve the purchaser of the responsibility under §91.417(c) to make the records available for inspection by the Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

[PEASACAKE]

Apologies for the long post here, but this details why you're surmising that swapping a data plate isn't wrong, bad or has any significant impact.

Using the airframe from an aircraft and rebuilding it has never been a problem if you follow the correct processes and is something I am intimately familiar with. The process is straightforward, entirely legal and has always been a part of aviation. There are even processes to build up former military aircraft from parts and issue them serial numbers, likewise for returning aircraft to service if their records are lost and destroyed.

What isn't legal is to remove the data plate from one aircraft and put it on another airframe with no approval or record of the change. It never has been - thank you Wrench 1 for your CAR reference. This has been going on illegally for years, and the more of these guys get caught and thrown in jail, the better. The reason it is so prevalent in the helicopter business is the rewards are huge, and in many cases cheap and easily procured military models provide very similar (or even identical) airframes to use as donors. I know who many of these people are, would never touch anything associated with them, but they are good at covering their tracks. I have discovered some of their actions, and have been involved with FAA and FBI investigations of their activities when they are detected, including bogus (timed out, and otherwise modified) blades and components. They remain a major risk to the unwary who may be paying top dollars for a low dollar imitation, that also may have it's C of A revoked if detected.

So, let's take a quick review of the regulatory process in the US, so we can all understand clearly why this is entirely in conflict with the entire FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). We'll go from beginning to end, as some of it will come back to bite you in multiple ways.

We are assuming the initial Aircraft has been appropriately designed, certified and manufactured in accordance with the FARs;

I'll let you reach your own conclusions.
And potential customers wondered why after over 35 years I and numerous others stopped carrying out pre purchase or engineering surveys.............................the older (45 years plus) the ships got the harder it was to verify the identity of parts and components after having been on numerous foreign registers and had numerous owners. For example, what Rolls Royce (Allison) did by identifying high value engine modules with simple screw on identification plates is beyond me, I lost count of the amount of wrong ident plates on engine modules I found on surveys.

Even found the completely wrong engine fitted on a twin in the UK that was for sale, it would have been sold with the correct engine data plate (somebody changed it...), but not the correct engine or any engine documentation, the original engine was hidden in the back of the hangar with metal generation, it should be unbelievable but I had taken another Licensed Engineer with me to help inspect the records and he witnessed it for himself. Potential customers want surveys carried out while they are looking at the machine, on a high, having a coffee, thinks the inspection takes a couple of hours, only want to pay for a days work. But they will not hesitate to take you to court 6 months later after they buy the ship and find something wrong during heavy maintenance that they think you should have found wrong...........been there, an expensive experience.

[ericferret]

And potential customers wondered why after over 35 years I and numerous others stopped carrying out pre purchase or engineering surveys.............................the older (45 years plus) the ships got the harder it was to verify the identity of parts and components after having been on numerous foreign registers and had numerous owners. For example, what Rolls Royce (Allison) did by identifying high value engine modules with simple screw on identification plates is beyond me, I lost count of the amount of wrong ident plates on engine modules I found on surveys.

Even found the completely wrong engine fitted on a twin in the UK that was for sale, it would have been sold with the correct engine data plate (somebody changed it...), but not the correct engine or any engine documentation, the original engine was hidden in the back of the hangar with metal generation, it should be unbelievable but I had taken another Licensed Engineer with me to help inspect the records and he witnessed it for himself. Potential customers want surveys carried out while they are looking at the machine, on a high, having a coffee, thinks the inspection takes a couple of hours, only want to pay for a days work. But they will not hesitate to take you to court 6 months later after they buy the ship and find something wrong during heavy maintenance that they think you should have found wrong...........been there, an expensive experience.


Also my experience.

One 206 sold on by a UK company sat in our hangar and had what appeared to be an unusual rivetting pattern on the R/H side of the fuselage below the engine. A comparison with another aircraft showed a difference. Going in through the man hole in the baggage bay revealed an interesting sight. The aircraft had clearly had an air conditioning system fitted which had been removed. There was no record of this in the aircraft documentation. It and all the related doublers had been removed and the aircraft side had been reskinned without the missing structure being replaced. When contacted the seller claimed "it wasn't like that when it left here"!!!
I felt it was probably a ringer fuselage but couldn't prove it. Cost the owner a bit to have it repaired.

[Cyclic Hotline]

The situation with the Bell 204, and later the Bell 205 got so out of control in Canada, that Transport Canada just threw their hands in the air and declared that they had no idea if anything was real or fake anymore, and that they would just accept everything as good so long as it stayed in Canada - a true conformity inspection would only be carried out upon application for an Export C of A. The FAA took a much more direct approach, and investigated every Bell 204, and revoked the C of A of any aircraft that could be clearly identified as having a direct UH-1 airframe heritage. This now left the entire aircraft and parts in a serious dilemma, as they were no longer eligible for installation on an aircraft as they had an unknown configuration having been flown on a now uncertificated product, neither a Standard Category nor Restricted Category aircraft, neither Bell 204 or UH-1. A number of people got seriously burned in that episode! There are plenty of great conforming aircraft around, but because of the accepted unknowns agreed by TCCA, many would never go through the Export process for fear of being detected. https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/reference-centre/pre-2007/airworthiness-staff-instructions-maintenance-manufacturing-staff-instructions/msi-36.html

[wrench1]

Also my experience.
Same here. It got to the point that I'd only do a pre-buy or conformity check for a select group of people as they filtered some of the BS ones out first. Unfortunately not all though. One of my favorites involved walking into the hangar and seeing a familiar N number. Figured someone had it reissued. However, about 30 minutes later walked back out with a previous logbook and told the prospective buyer it's junk and told the broker he could call the FSDO or I would. Long story short, he called and got the data tag pulled. Don't recall what happened to the owner. The logbook I found had my name it a number of times and was a M/R strike that ripped the roof off and was sold as salvage by the insurance company. Needless to say I wasn't too pleased of my name getting involved. Unfortunately as some here have mentioned, it's not always this convenient to find one.

[ericferret]

Same here. It got to the point that I'd only do a pre-buy or conformity check for a select group of people as they filtered some of the BS ones out first. Unfortunately not all though. One of my favorites involved walking into the hangar and seeing a familiar N number. Figured someone had it reissued. However, about 30 minutes later walked back out with a previous logbook and told the prospective buyer it's junk and told the broker he could call the FSDO or I would. Long story short, he called and got the data tag pulled. Don't recall what happened to the owner. The logbook I found had my name it a number of times and was a M/R strike that ripped the roof off and was sold as salvage by the insurance company. Needless to say I wasn't too pleased of my name getting involved. Unfortunately as some here have mentioned, it's not always this convenient to find one.

Nothing seems to change. Friend of mine gets a phone call. Hi X when did you actually leave company Y.
End of June,why? Well you signed for a compass swing in August according to the log book I'm looking at.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/06/30/moldova-shuts-down-bootleg-helicopter-factory/NEWS (https://balkaninsight.com/birn_article_type/news/)Moldova Shuts Down Bootleg Helicopter FactoryMadalin Necsutu (https://balkaninsight.com/author/madalin-necsutu/)
Chisinau (https://balkaninsight.com/birn_location/chisinau/)
BIRN (https://balkaninsight.com/birn_source/birn/)
June 30, 202015:15
Prosecutors and police in Moldova closed down a clandestine factory that was illegally producing copies of Soviet-type Kamov KA-26 helicopters to sell to ex-Soviet states.https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/poza_1_procuratura_0-e1593517418305.jpg
Moldovan officers raid the clandestine helicopter factory in the eastern Criuleni district. Photo: Moldovan Police/Facebook.

The Moldovan Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Organised Crime and Special Cases and investigators from the Police General Inspectorate closed a clandestine factory in the Criuleni area near the Dniester river in the east of the country on Tuesday that was producing copies of Kamov KA-26 Soviet-type helicopters.

“Over the past several months, the police documented the illegal activity of a well-organised group of people specialising in the production of helicopters,” the Interior Ministry said in a press release.

The secretly-built helicopters were about to be exported illegally to former Soviet countries, it said.

Searches carried out on Tuesday found that there were over ten helicopters on the production line, at various stages of completion.

Most of the people suspected of being involved in the production and assembly process, including the organisers and heads of the illegal operation, are residents of Moldova’s breakaway Transnistrian region.

All the helicopters were produced without the necessary permits and documents of origin for the parts and equipment used.

A criminal case for preparing to smuggle aircraft by two or more persons has been initiated by prosecutors. If found guilty, the suspects could face jail sentences ranging from three to ten years, according to Moldovan law.

[Cyclic Hotline]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2020-09-24/us-deport-uk-man-convicted-aircraft-parts-fraudU.S. To Deport UK Man Convicted of Aircraft Parts Fraudby Jerry Siebenmark (https://www.ainonline.com/jerry-siebenmark)
- September 24, 2020, 10:35 AMAfter admitting in court (https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2020-06-25/uk-man-pleads-guilty-aircraft-parts-fraud) to attempted aircraft parts fraud, the owner and operator of a Tennessee helicopter sales and repair shop has been sentenced to time served—amounting to nearly eight months—in prison as well as three years of supervised release and a $100 special assessment. Richard Paul Harper, the owner of Apple International in Bristol and a UK citizen, must also surrender to immigration for deportation.

Harper admitted in a June 16 plea agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that he obtained a helicopter with significant damage to its underbelly and switched its fuselage and data plate with that of one that had crashed in New Jersey. He then marketed the helicopter and tried to sell it to an undercover agent posing as an aircraft broker.

Harper was arrested in Los Angeles on January 24, when he returned to the U.S. to attend Heli-Expo 2020. He faced up to 10 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervised release.

In conjunction with this conviction, it appears the business has also been impacted. https://www.appleheli.com/

[Rigga]

R and M international during the 90’s sold more 2nd hand 206’s into Europe than any other company.
Most of them were sourced from Edwards Associates from Bristol Tennessee.
Edwards were the Bell preferred 2nd hand dealer and often carried out one off specialist work.

I was a bit late to know the R&M guys and a little bit slow in making this connection (it took me seconds) but I was 'involved' with the successors to their workshop Xxxxx Xxxxxx in the early 2000's where a dodgy rotor head was 'stopped' and returned to where it came. That company was wound up not too long after starting, but the odour of R&M was all around...

[Rigga]

.... But really, what would the harm be? .... what sprayer hasn't been wrecked at least once? ... it hardly matters......what's the harm? .

So you don't care! - I think you need to buy this wonderful car I've just taped together!

[FH1100 Pilot]

So you don't care! - I think you need to buy this wonderful car I've just taped together!
Hey, nice analogy there, bub! I mean...not. Rigga, please!

Look, cars don't have to be assembled with certified parts that either have yellow-tags or 8130's or Component Historical Record cards...you know...what people in the aviation industry call "traceability." And those parts must be installed and signed-off by a federally-certified mechanic. Al maintenance must be documented. And then the whole shebang must be signed-off by a certified mechanic with Inspection Authorization.

There are checks and balances, in other words.

Can stuff be faked? Sure, disreputable people do dishonest things all the time. Bad things happen if an ignorant buyer procures a sketchy part or aircraft from a shady supplier and due-diligence isn't performed.

If the rules are followed (with respect to my first paragraph), then I see nothing wrong with, say, building up a Bell 47 or even a 206 from legitimate parts. It was done routinely in both the fixed- and rotary-wing industries until the FAA changed the game. FAA now clarified their rule and says that you cannot remove a data tag or data plate from one component and put it on another. And Bell changed the game too. If a Bell aircraft is crashed (and that crash is reported), and said aircraft is listed as "destroyed," Bell removes that airframe serial number from its master list, rendering the ship permanently unairworthy.

There is nothing inherently "unsafe" about taking a 206 fuselage shell, sticking a data plate from another hull on it, and then installing a bunch of legitimate, certified components, documenting all of the maintenance performed, and having it signed-off as complying with its Type Certificate by an IA. Just about everything on a 206 has a yellow-tag or a CHR card. All that stuff is usually kept in a big binder along with the aircraft and engine logbooks. It's not rocket science. If that stuff isn't available, a buyer should run, not walk away.

Building up an aircraft from legitimate parts is not the same as "taping together" a car and selling it to an unsuspecting buyer.

[John R81]

That's the equivalent of taking a component - say a gearbox - and adding the data tag from a different gearbox. The data plate is surely the identifier for that hull. If the hull is fine, why not use its own data plate. If there is "nothing inherently unsafe" with braking the traceability of the fuselage then no problem to break any other line of traceability.

Anyway could be, should be, etc all of no avail. It is not legal to swap data plates and, if caught, there are therfore consequences.

[wrench1]

If the rules are followed (with respect to my first paragraph), then I see nothing wrong with, say, building up a Bell 47 or even a 206 from legitimate parts. It was done routinely in both the fixed- and rotary-wing industries until the FAA changed the game. FAA now clarified their rule and says that you cannot remove a data tag or data plate from one component and put it on another. And Bell changed the game too. If a Bell aircraft is crashed (and that crash is reported), and said aircraft is listed as "destroyed," Bell removes that airframe serial number from its master list, rendering the ship permanently unairworthy..You still seem to be confusing the two issues. Building or assembling an aircraft from spare or salvage parts is still an acceptable method per the FAA and has its own set of guidance which has been around for decades as shown in the link below. None of which involves swapping data plates. I’ve been a part of several legal aircraft salvage rebuilds. The rules and process are straight forward. So why not follow them?
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_21-13.pdf

As to the “FAA now clarified” their data plate removal rule, not quite. As mentioned several times above, that rule has been around for many years. It’s been tweaked because it’s obvious even today some people still have reading comprehension issues on whether it’s okay to move data plates between aircraft.

And for the reason Bell started tracking destroyed aircraft, you can basically blame one Washington company for that. They took a data plate from a 1966 fatal 204B wreck in the GOM and 30 years later that same S/N aircraft miraculously flew on a US Forestry contract. However, under that data plate was actually a modified UH-1 aircraft. And guess what, the “whole shebang” was signed-off by a certified mechanic as well. Go figure. So would you fly that aircraft since all the “checks and balances” and “due-diligence” were met?

Regardless, given the OP article is dated 2020 and all the existing FAA guidance on data plates and aircraft rebuilds is dated from 24, 47, and 65+ years ago, the only obvious answer people still consider swapping data plates as the only way to rebuild aircraft from surplus is that they want to beat the system and make a quick buck. Personally, anybody caught violating these long standing rules should be banned from aviation permanently and serve an extended stretch at Club Fed. But that’s just me.

[Rigga]

FH1100,

I still think you should drive this car for a few hundred miles (Ive found some out of date glue for the wings too) and it's relatively cheap. It's a '92 model but with a serial number for this year. Turn the stereo up and you won't notice the creaking.

The data plate is a tiny bit of metal - but an essential part of tracing the history of an item, be it as large as a hull or a small valve. FALSIFYING / CORRUPTING the data by swapping the plate to another item is what this is all about. Suddenly - YOU the buyer don't actually know what the history is or how frail that item is - the seller has lied to you and you have not bought what you thought you had leading to a loss of reliability and increase in costs. You have bought a Cut-and-Shut helicopter that, if and when investigated due to any incident, no insurance will pay out on...

But you don't need to worry about that...?

[Cyclic Hotline]

I can't believe that we are back to the same discussion regarding the legality of data plate swapping. Exactly what part of the regulatory framework are you unable to comprehend? You are describing the precise process to accomplish this action, with the one major exception, namely; documenting the principal maintenance action performed in re-identifying an aircraft. Even you are detailing this in your list of requirements, but omitting the most significant maintenance action you are undertaking, by "sticking a data plate from another hull on it". Any IA that knowingly signs that off, deserves whatever penalty is assigned. You keep stating that this was never a problem in the good old days, but it was equally in contravention of the regulations then, as it is today. Let's be very clear here, you are describing the performance of an action in contravention of the FAR, coupled with a fraudulent record of the maintenance performed specifically to obfuscate your illegal activities - or did I get that wrong? There is no place for your defense that there is nothing "inherently unsafe" about an activity that is clearly illegal and in contravention of the regulation and negates the Airworthiness Certificate of the product.

There is nothing inherently "unsafe" about taking a 206 fuselage shell, sticking a data plate from another hull on it, and then installing a bunch of legitimate, certified components, documenting all of the maintenance performed, and having it signed-off as complying with its Type Certificate by an IA. Just about everything on a 206 has a yellow-tag or a CHR card. All that stuff is usually kept in a big binder along with the aircraft and engine logbooks. It's not rocket science. If that stuff isn't available, a buyer should run, not walk away.

Just for reference, here is the current regulation pertaining to this activity;

§ 45.13 Identification data.(a) The identification required by § 45.11 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.11) (a) through (c) must include the following information:

(1) Builder's name.

(2) Model designation.

(3) Builder's serial number.

(4) Type certificate number, if any.

(5) Production certificate number, if any.

(6) For aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) engines, the established rating (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=5e04dbe216da194fe7f0e9b20dcdc53a&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13).

(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=697c02a0bf87c417a7937ddd41b75018&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) specified in part 34 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-34) of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in § 34.1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/34.1) of this chapter, and a designation, approved by the FAA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=df14de7c16e00ca3868915d263954ee7&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), that indicates compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34 of this chapter and 40 CFR part 87 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-87). Approved designations include COMPLY, EXEMPT, and NON-US, as appropriate. After December 31, 2012, approved designations also include EXEMPT NEW, and EXCEPTED SPARE, as appropriate.

(i) The designation COMPLY indicates that the engine is in compliance with all of the applicable exhaust emissions provisions of part 34. For any engine with a rated thrust in excess of 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 pounds) which is not used or intended for use in commercial operations and which is in compliance with the applicable provisions of part 34, but does not comply with the hydrocarbon emissions standard of § 34.21(d) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/34.21#d), the statement “May not be used as a commercial aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) engine” must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine at the time of manufacture of the engine.

(ii) The designation EXEMPT indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/34.7) (a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c), or (d), and an indication of the type of exemption and the reason for the grant must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of manufacture of the engine.

(iii) The designation NON-US indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to § 34.7(a)(1) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/34.7#a_1), and the notation “This aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) may not be operated within the United States”, or an equivalent notation approved by the FAA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=df14de7c16e00ca3868915d263954ee7&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), must be inserted in the aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) logbook, or alternate equivalent document, at the time of installation of the engine.

(iv) The designation EXEMPT NEW indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7(h) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/34.7#h) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.

(v) The designation EXCEPTED SPARE indicates that the engine has been excepted pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.9(b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/34.9#b) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.

(8) Any other information the FAA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=df14de7c16e00ca3868915d263954ee7&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) finds appropriate.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.13#d_1) of this section, no person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=24a80ca42ed148d527b7ddad982da95a&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.13#a) of this section, on any aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), aircraft engine (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=697c02a0bf87c417a7937ddd41b75018&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) blade, or propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) hub, without the approval of the FAA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=df14de7c16e00ca3868915d263954ee7&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13).

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.13#d_2) of this section, no person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=24a80ca42ed148d527b7ddad982da95a&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) may remove or install any identification plate required by § 45.11, without the approval of the FAA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=df14de7c16e00ca3868915d263954ee7&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13).

(d) Persons (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=24a80ca42ed148d527b7ddad982da95a&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) performing work under the provisions of Part 43 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-43) of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=df14de7c16e00ca3868915d263954ee7&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) -

(1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.13#a) of this section on any aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), aircraft engine (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=697c02a0bf87c417a7937ddd41b75018&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) blade, or propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) hub; or

(2) Remove an identification plate required by § 45.11 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.11) when necessary during maintenance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=fc2f07b03933ee61135b3c5de147ca70&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) operations.

(e) No person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=24a80ca42ed148d527b7ddad982da95a&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/45.13#d_2) of this section on any aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), aircraft engine (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=697c02a0bf87c417a7937ddd41b75018&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13), propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) blade, or propeller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1a91f12776f0b6edf96c9239c4ef2494&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:C:Part:45:Subpart:B:4 5.13) hub other than the one from which it was removed.

And here is a legal interpretation of the same from the NTSB Law Judges; https://shackelford.law/news-aviation/aviation-law-articles/thinking-about-swapping-data-plates-between-two-aircraft-dont-do-it/

And just for reference from the Good Old Days, here is the regulation in force in 1967. Check out 45.13 (b)


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/666x879/image_f28b2b85e279f82d75c96fbfd6523b9cb9e2d13d.png

[Attorney]

To whom it may concern,

I am the Attorney that represented Richard Harper recently in Federal Court regarding a helicopter repair case. I am not one that typically engages in blogging activity and I do not plan on making any further response to this blog.

However, Mr. Harper has asked me to clear up some confusion and I have agreed to do so. He would like to point out that neither he nor his Company Apple International carried out any Airframe Repairs on the subject helicopter, the Airframe was sent to an independent FAA Approved Airframe Repair Station, equipped with a JIG for Bell 206 series Airframe repairs. Mr. Harper wishes to make it crystal clear that he (nor Apple) never ever touched, removed or affixed any Data Plates.

Mr. Harper agrees that In the United States Title 18 USC Section 38(a) makes it an offense to “knowingly and with the intent to defraud, falsifies or conceals a material fact concerning any aircraft…makes or uses any materially false writing, entry, certification, document, record, data plate, label, or electronic communication concerning any aircraft….” Apple International relied on the Books & Records entries made by the Repair Station.

The purpose of 18 USC 38(a) is to prevent people from taking scrap helicopter parts and putting together a spliced-up helicopter and selling it as if were a good unit. There is a slang term that is used by the government agents for people who do this, the slang term is making a “frankencopter.”

Mr. Harper did not produce a frakencopter. The best evidence of this is a letter that is in the Federal Court record that was mailed by the purchaser of the helicopter and that I have attached (it is public record).

The purchaser of the helicopter acknowledged that the helicopter was in good condition. In fact, the Federal Agent involved stated that had the helicopter been sold in Canada or any other Country, there would be absolutely nothing illegal about the transaction. However, in America, it is considered illegal.

As I stated earlier I will not be responding to this blog but I do want to make clear to anybody reading this blog that the helicopter sold by Mr. Harper was in perfect operating condition as has been acknowledged by the purchaser of the helicopter, it just so happened that in the United States you cannot repair a fuselage to the degree that the Repair Station in question did.

Mr. Harper has accepted this as a lesson for anybody that repairs helicopters; particularly fuselages.

[frankspotter]

I have read and dwelled on some of the comments made in this case, I feel sure there are a lot of sour grapes from certain dis-gruntled people. I have known Apple for many years and they have always produced superb refurbished Bell Helicopters and from what I understand they had nothing to do with the repairs made to the helicopter airframe.

[FlimsyFan]

I have read and dwelled on some of the comments made in this case, I feel sure there are a lot of sour grapes from certain dis-gruntled people. I have known Apple for many years and they have always produced superb refurbished Bell Helicopters and from what I understand they had nothing to do with the repairs made to the helicopter airframe.

Hello Mr Harper 😂

[Cyclic Hotline]

Oh look, here's another group of innocent people doing nothing wrong! https://www.postguam.com/news/local/helicopter-fraud-defendants-answer-to-new-federal-charges/article_92b61e0e-610a-11eb-9761-bb1d51ba57a9.html Helicopter fraud defendants answer to new federal charges

Nick Delgado | The Guam Daily Post (https://www.postguam.com/users/profile/Nick%20DeIgado)
Jan 29, 2021 Updated Jan 29, 2021
?subject=%5BGuam%20Daily%20Post%2C%20LLC%5D%20Helicopter%20f raud%20defendants%20answer%20to%20new%20federal%20charges&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.postguam.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fhelicop ter-fraud-defendants-answer-to-new-federal-charges%2Farticle_92b61e0e-610a-11eb-9761-bb1d51ba57a9.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail %26utm_campaign%3Duser-share

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postguam.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/ac/4ac49d8e-dd59-11e6-9c4f-97621f2ba1c6/587f2931bb6c6.image.jpg?resize=400%2C267
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postguam.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/ac/4ac49d8e-dd59-11e6-9c4f-97621f2ba1c6/587f2931bb6c6.image.jpg?resize=200%2C133
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postguam.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/ac/4ac49d8e-dd59-11e6-9c4f-97621f2ba1c6/587f2931bb6c6.image.jpg?resize=200%2C133
HANSEN: The office and warehouse of Hansen Helicopters Inc., a Guam-based helicopter transport company, were searched in 2016 as part of a criminal case against the company. John Walker, Marvin Reed, Kenneth Crowe, Phillip Kapp and Randall Rogers of Hansen Helicopters, and Frank Litkei Sr. of Spares Inc. were indicted on numerous charges on Jan. 8. Post file photo

?subject=%5BGuam%20Daily%20Post%2C%20LLC%5D%20Helicopter%20f raud%20defendants%20answer%20to%20new%20federal%20charges&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.postguam.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fhelicop ter-fraud-defendants-answer-to-new-federal-charges%2Farticle_92b61e0e-610a-11eb-9761-bb1d51ba57a9.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail %26utm_campaign%3Duser-share

The defendants in a federal fraud case involving Hansen Helicopters Inc. answered to the charges filed against them in a second superseding indictment in the District Court of Guam on Thursday.

Defendants John Walker, Marvin Reed, Kenneth Crowe, Phillip Kapp and Randall Rogers of Hansen Helicopters, and Frank Litkei Sr. of Spares Inc. were indicted on numerous charges on Jan. 8.

They appeared for arraignment before Magistrate Judge Michael Bordallo.

The charges include multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board; destruction, alteration or falsification of records; false statement; aircraft parts fraud; employing a mechanic without a mechanic's certificate; employing a pilot without a pilot's certificate; registration violations involving helicopters; bribery; conspiracy to commit wire fraud; wire fraud; money laundering; and a notice of forfeiture allegation.

The defendants were initially charged in May 2018 and a superseding indictment adding more charges against the group was filed in December 2019, Post files state.

In September 2020, Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood dismissed multiple counts that charged the defendants with employing a mechanic without a mechanic's certificate, as the defense argued the charge was "duplicitous," or joined two or more offenses in the same count.

Federal prosecutors then told the court they were working to file a second superseding indictment.

On Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Leon Guerrero requested that the court hold a hearing to remand defendants Walker, Crowe, Kapp and Reed.

Hansen operated aerial tours and tuna-spotting services for international fishing operations, and provided charter services for federal agencies to locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands otherwise inaccessible by air.

The men are accused of obtaining aircraft that had been deregistered because they were destroyed, scrapped or deemed not airworthy, and then falsifying documents and records submitted to government agencies to obtain airworthiness certificates for those same aircraft.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Well, isn't this interesting?
Despite the assertions of various posters in support of the illegal data-plate swapping activities that were going on, the FAA has now initiated steps to revoke their Repair Station and the same people are identified as being behind the actions that took place. Maybe we'll learn more about their innocence if they fight this?
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/539236444/press-release-faa-revokes-repair-station-certificate-of-apple-international-inc-of-tennesseePress Release - FAA Revokes Repair Station Certificate of Apple International Inc. of TennesseeNEWS PROVIDED BY
FAA (https://www.einpresswire.com/sources/faa)
April 23, 2021, 14:22 GMT
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
WASHINGTON The U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to revoke the repair station certificate of Apple International Inc., of Bristol, Tenn.

The FAA alleges that Apples owner instructed employees to remove the identification plate from one Bell Helicopter and put it on a different Bell Helicopter without the approval of the FAA. Changing the aircrafts identification plate had the effect of misrepresenting the identity of the aircraft to potential purchasers.

Additionally, Apples owner pleaded guilty in September 2020 to attempted aircraft-parts fraud. Federal law requires the FAA to revoke a certificate when an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in a certificate holder is convicted of certain aviation-related crimes, including parts fraud.

Apple International has 15 days after receiving the FAAs enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

[wrench1]

Maybe we'll learn more about their innocence if they fight this?
I wonder if Harper's "attorney" will post again with another follow up?


I am the Attorney that represented Richard Harper recently in Federal Court regarding a helicopter repair case. I am not one that typically engages in blogging activity and I do not plan on making any further response to this blog.

However, Mr. Harper has asked me to clear up some confusion and I have agreed to do so. He would like to point out that neither he nor his Company Apple International carried out any Airframe Repairs on the subject helicopter, the Airframe was sent to an independent FAA Approved Airframe Repair Station, equipped with a JIG for Bell 206 series Airframe repairs. Mr. Harper wishes to make it crystal clear that he (nor Apple) never ever touched, removed or affixed any Data Plates.

[212man]

I don’t believe that was written by a lawyer......

[Cyclic Hotline]

The latest from Guam and Hansen.
https://www.postguam.com/news/local/chief-pilots-case-separated-from-helicopter-companys-trial/article_53f1dafc-a8ab-11ec-af42-ff6e04306bb6.htmlChief pilot's case separated from helicopter company's trial

John O'Connor | The Guam Daily Post (https://www.postguam.com/users/profile/John%20O%27Connor)
23 hrs ago

The case against Kenneth Crowe, chief pilot at Hansen Helicopters Inc., has been separated from his co-defendants' in an ongoing federal fraud trial involving the company and its officials.

District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood made the decision Monday morning as she weighed concerns from Crowe's lawyer, David Lujan, and proceeding with the other defendants' case without delay.

The remaining defendants for the trial include John Walker, the primary owner of Hansen; Phillip Kapp, director of maintenance at Hansen; and the company itself.

The defendants stand accused of circumventing U.S. aviation safety regulations to maximize profits.

Lawyers spent a couple of hours Monday discussing an issue in the judge's chambers. That discussion had been sealed by Tydingco-Gatewood, but after the parties emerged, Lujan stated he believed the discussion should be disclosed, as it is a public trial and the topic discussed was already "in the public domain."

He also believed that he needed a day to research ethical duties to his client and that Crowe also needed a couple of days to find a lawyer for the matter discussed.

Talk of potential delay drew opposition from the prosecution. Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Miller stated that prior delays had been caused by Lujan and for this most recent issue, argued that there was no basis for further delay. According to Miller, the trial is costing the federal government $130,000 per day.

The prosecution also objected to disclosing the discussion in the judge's chamber to the public.

"Mr. Lujan continues to bring things to the public domain that do not belong there because those things could negatively influence a fair trial ... They will not get a fair trial if we keep having shenanigans put into the public record because that increases the risk of there being some impropriety with the jury," Miller said.

The matter discussed in the chief judge's chamber involved information the prosecution received on Saturday. Lujan argued that the prosecution waited until Monday morning to discuss the issue and that it was a "serious matter" that he needed to address so that he can ensure he was the right lawyer for Crowe.

Miller stated they submitted an email to defense counsels indicating they would seek an audience with the judge Monday morning, and it was an issue they didn't want to place into email communications at the time.

"The FBI was still conducting its investigation. It had asked us and had asked everyone to just stand down and wait, other than of course letting your honor know," Miller said.

Tydingco-Gatewood stated that the court must avoid prejudice to the other defendants based on delay.

Tydingco-Gatewood stated she was inclined to sever Crowe before ultimately making that decision late Monday morning.

The trial was recessed for the rest of the day and is expected to resume this morning.

Charges against the defendants include multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board.

Hansen operated aerial tours and tuna-spotting services for international fishing operations and provided charter services for federal agencies to locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands otherwise inaccessible by air.

[rotorfish]

Hansens are rebadging as Pacific Spotters, using the exact same helicopters that have been described in court by the prosecuting DA as "Frankenstien Helicopters" responsible for nine deaths and 16 serious injuries.


Rafael Cruz Santos

Rafael was a highly regarded pilot with considerable experience. He had extensive active service in the El Salvador Air Force, including training with the US Military, was a graduate of the Air University at Maxwell Air Force base in Alabama, and he became the Chief Commander of the El Salvador Helicopter Squadrons. For two years was the personal Air Force pilot of the then President Burkard of El Salvador.

He joined Hansen’s and was given a newly prepared helicopter. Unbeknownst to him, the helicopter had been sold as scrap metal for $$ per kilo after a devastating accident where the occupants had to be cut free of the wreckage.

The evidence from the former owner and from the manufacturer is that the helicopter was a total loss and could not be safely repaired. Hansen’s purchased the wreckage and using other scrapped parts, constructed a helicopter, using the data plate and log books from the wreck. The description by the US Prosecutor of “Frankenstein Helicopters” is most appropriate.

Shortly after Rafael began operating the helicopter on a fish spotting contract, the helicopter plummeted from the sky, and he died as a result.

Marvin Reed, Vice President of Hansen’s has admitted in evidence that he was aware that that the helicopter in which pilot Rafael Santos died, crashed due to counterfeit parts being used

Greed + Corruption = Death

[rotorfish]

There is a now a lot more information available on Hansens, who themselves have changed data plates on their company and are rebadged as Pacific Spotters. You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig. The whole indictment is available on www.hansen-helicopters.com

[Cyclic Hotline]

Pacific Spotters in the news again with yet another fatal accident, this time in the Philippines! https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/16/22/1-dead-2-injured-in-pampanga-chopper-crash1 dead, 2 injured in Pampanga chopper crashABS-CBN NewsPosted at Aug 16 2022 05:59 PM
https://sa.kapamilya.com/absnews/abscbnnews/media/2022/news/08/16/chopper-crash-8162022.jpgCourtesy: Clark Development Corporation handoutMANILA — A helicopter crashed at the Clark Freeport Zone in Pampanga on Tuesday, leaving one dead and 2 others injured.

Authorities said the 2 injured victims were mechanics working on the ill-fated chopper.

Records of the Pacific Spotter Company showed that the victims were doing technical repairs for the Model MD369HS helicopter, manufactured in 1973, when it suddenly crashed midflight at around 10:50 a.m. Tuesday.

"Tine-test nila iyong chopper at sa kasamaang palad ay nagkaroon po ng disgrasya," Mabalacat City information officer Jay Pelayo told ABS-CBN News.

Following the mishap, Mabalacat City Mayor Cris Garbo ordered the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (CDRRMO) to look into the incident and determine what assistance the local government can provide.

—Report from Gracie Rutao, ABS-CBN News

[Cyclic Hotline]

There are lots of ways to be caught out by individuals that find ways to work the system and sanitize the parts. Here is yet another example of who a buyer might inadvertently purchased unapproved parts from a thoroughly bogus source. I'll await the explanation of how this is a perfectly acceptable process from those who have no issue with it - even though the FAA and everyone else does!
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USAFAA/2023/09/15/file_attachments/2616223/SAFO23007.pdf

[Cyclic Hotline]

It has been very interesting to watch the reaction to the various bogus CFM-56 parts that have been discovered to have contaminated the parts pool for the largest population of an individual engine model in operation.

I have yet to read a single defence of this entirely fraudulent business from either operators, regulators, OEM's, pilots, engineers or pax.

Obviously they need to come to this post to understand how their concerns about a few insignificant parts are irrelevant, and that entire bogus aircraft are completely acceptable...