FAA: "Hundreds of discrepancies" for Phoenix Heliparts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: AZ
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA: "Hundreds of discrepancies" for Phoenix Heliparts
Just read this in AIN Alerts. Are you surprised?
FAA Revokes Phoenix Heliparts’ 145 Certificate
Today the FAA revoked Phoenix Heliparts’ air agency certificate to operate as a Part 145 repair station, alleging that the Mesa, Ariz. company performed improper repairs and deliberately falsified maintenance records. The emergency revocation comes on the heels of an investigation, begun in 2008 by the FAA’s Scottsdale Flight Service District Office, that allegedly uncovered multiple violations and “hundreds” of discrepancies. These include intentionally false entries in the aircraft maintenance records on at least four occasions, unauthorized use of an electronic recordkeeping system, failure to operate the maintenance shop according to its approved repair station and quality control manuals, using unqualified people to perform the work and use of incorrect parts. The FAA also alleges that Phoenix Heliparts identified unserviceable parts as serviceable and retained them for reuse, failed to document maintenance work and inspections, and failed to have and use approved data to guide major repairs and alterations. The FAA charged that Phoenix Heliparts had approved the return to service of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Hughes 369 with more than 30 airworthiness discrepancies and 100 items that had not been inspected in accordance with the company’s own quality control manual. Phoenix Heliparts can appeal the revocation to the NTSB. Company president Tina Cannon was not available for comment at press time.
FAA Revokes Phoenix Heliparts’ 145 Certificate
Today the FAA revoked Phoenix Heliparts’ air agency certificate to operate as a Part 145 repair station, alleging that the Mesa, Ariz. company performed improper repairs and deliberately falsified maintenance records. The emergency revocation comes on the heels of an investigation, begun in 2008 by the FAA’s Scottsdale Flight Service District Office, that allegedly uncovered multiple violations and “hundreds” of discrepancies. These include intentionally false entries in the aircraft maintenance records on at least four occasions, unauthorized use of an electronic recordkeeping system, failure to operate the maintenance shop according to its approved repair station and quality control manuals, using unqualified people to perform the work and use of incorrect parts. The FAA also alleges that Phoenix Heliparts identified unserviceable parts as serviceable and retained them for reuse, failed to document maintenance work and inspections, and failed to have and use approved data to guide major repairs and alterations. The FAA charged that Phoenix Heliparts had approved the return to service of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Hughes 369 with more than 30 airworthiness discrepancies and 100 items that had not been inspected in accordance with the company’s own quality control manual. Phoenix Heliparts can appeal the revocation to the NTSB. Company president Tina Cannon was not available for comment at press time.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if that will effect HeliMart as they bought Phoenix Heliparts.
I know a LOT of people who operate machines that have come from Phoenix. Not good.
I know a LOT of people who operate machines that have come from Phoenix. Not good.
K2D2
Yes I am have a look at the rebuild the owner is very meticulous if he had a smell of fish I think he would be gone.
Richard’s World
As I understand it the problem was 2 years ago before present owners, but Hey only reporting what is posted on another site
The accusations centre around events that took place over two years ago when the company was under different management," Cannon told the AP. "The company has addressed all concerns under direction of counsel for over a year now and was reissued its certificate after standing down." The FAA allegations include major restoration work that the company performed on a damaged Hughes 369 helicopter owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Another company hired by the USDA to inspect the helicopter before it returned to service found more than 30 discrepancies.
Yes I am have a look at the rebuild the owner is very meticulous if he had a smell of fish I think he would be gone.
Richard’s World
As I understand it the problem was 2 years ago before present owners, but Hey only reporting what is posted on another site
The accusations centre around events that took place over two years ago when the company was under different management," Cannon told the AP. "The company has addressed all concerns under direction of counsel for over a year now and was reissued its certificate after standing down." The FAA allegations include major restoration work that the company performed on a damaged Hughes 369 helicopter owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Another company hired by the USDA to inspect the helicopter before it returned to service found more than 30 discrepancies.
Last edited by 500e; 11th Sep 2010 at 11:17.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that Richard is quite picky about his helicopter. Paying the kind of money he has and will for this work, I don't blame him one bit.
A couple of points need to be mentioned here. First aircraft operated by government organizations fall under a classification of "Public Use". So aircraft operated under that classification have much different requirements. So the work conducted by PHP would have been spelled out in the contract for that work. So without having any knowledge of the contract, it would be hard to say what exactly happened.
Next, under the requirements of a Part 145 repair station, very few of the maintenance personnel have to hold and FAA mechanic's certificate. In fact the work is normally signed off by not only the person working on the item, but also the inspector. Plus they would not use their A&P certificate number, but their assigned company number on the sign offs.
A couple of points need to be mentioned here. First aircraft operated by government organizations fall under a classification of "Public Use". So aircraft operated under that classification have much different requirements. So the work conducted by PHP would have been spelled out in the contract for that work. So without having any knowledge of the contract, it would be hard to say what exactly happened.
Next, under the requirements of a Part 145 repair station, very few of the maintenance personnel have to hold and FAA mechanic's certificate. In fact the work is normally signed off by not only the person working on the item, but also the inspector. Plus they would not use their A&P certificate number, but their assigned company number on the sign offs.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pens. pecils & PCs
Unless i miss the target (likely!) I suspect that the Part 145 MOE didn't specify a PC programme for tech records - together with all the associated data back-up procedures etc etc. FAA can be pretty strict on such things; if you didn't refer to it then you can't legally use it (because, I suspect, there will be no audit programme specified in the procedures manual) Just jumped through hoops over here (UK) with a Company who extended their existing EASA part 145 approval to now be approved as FAA also. Painful exercise. Actually I thought there was a level playing field. Apparently I got that wrong. 
Best ~ VFR
Best ~ VFR
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR,
You most likely correct that they were using a electronic program that was not listed in their manuals. However, it may have been required by the customer. When you deal with government agencies they tend to want you to use their programs. If that was the case and with the aircraft under public use, the FAA really doesn't have too much of a leg to stand on. The FAA has a habit of throwing as much dirt at the operator as they can, even if they have to manufacture the dirt and see how much actually sticks.
The FAA's track record on major revocations like this is not that good.
You most likely correct that they were using a electronic program that was not listed in their manuals. However, it may have been required by the customer. When you deal with government agencies they tend to want you to use their programs. If that was the case and with the aircraft under public use, the FAA really doesn't have too much of a leg to stand on. The FAA has a habit of throwing as much dirt at the operator as they can, even if they have to manufacture the dirt and see how much actually sticks.
The FAA's track record on major revocations like this is not that good.
This could be one of their continuing stories 
FAA Revokes Alouette C of A
A West Virginia company says it wants its "day in court" to fight a seemingly perplexing decision by the FAA to ground dozens of French-built helicopters, some of which have been operating in the U.S. for years. As AVweb reported last month, the agency sent owners of some Alouette helicopters telling them they must have a "certificate of airworthiness for export" to fly legally in the U.S., even though FAA inspectors had authorized the importation of some Alouettes and issued valid U.S. C of A documents without that document. The issue mainly affects aircraft built for use by the French and German military, which have gone on the surplus market. Marpat spokesman Joe Altizer told AVweb the latest wrinkle is that while the documentation the FAA says it requires exists in French archives, French authorities are claiming the FAA has asked them not to release those documents to the owners. FAA spokesman Roland Herwig says he's looking into the allegations that the FAA is trying to block access to the French documents. Altizer said the FAA's inability or unwillingness to resolve the issue at the administrative level led him to openly defy the agency 10 days ago and that brought an immediate response in the form of an emergency revocation of the aircraft's certificate of airworthiness.
Marpat's Alouette was grounded for the paperwork discrepancy on July 6 and Altizer said he spent five weeks trying to get answers from the FAA about how to make it legal again. On Aug. 13 the company sent an email telling the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate that it planned to resume flying its Alouette. After five weeks of silence, the agency responded the following day with the emergency revocation. Marpat appealed the revocation and that means a hearing must be held. Altizer said there is no safety of flight issue, as the Alouettes have shown themselves to be reliable aircraft. He said he hopes the hearing will require the FAA to reveal why it's gone to such extreme measures to ground aircraft that don't appear to be a threat to anyone.
A West Virginia company says it wants its "day in court" to fight a seemingly perplexing decision by the FAA to ground dozens of French-built helicopters, some of which have been operating in the U.S. for years. As AVweb reported last month, the agency sent owners of some Alouette helicopters telling them they must have a "certificate of airworthiness for export" to fly legally in the U.S., even though FAA inspectors had authorized the importation of some Alouettes and issued valid U.S. C of A documents without that document. The issue mainly affects aircraft built for use by the French and German military, which have gone on the surplus market. Marpat spokesman Joe Altizer told AVweb the latest wrinkle is that while the documentation the FAA says it requires exists in French archives, French authorities are claiming the FAA has asked them not to release those documents to the owners. FAA spokesman Roland Herwig says he's looking into the allegations that the FAA is trying to block access to the French documents. Altizer said the FAA's inability or unwillingness to resolve the issue at the administrative level led him to openly defy the agency 10 days ago and that brought an immediate response in the form of an emergency revocation of the aircraft's certificate of airworthiness.
Marpat's Alouette was grounded for the paperwork discrepancy on July 6 and Altizer said he spent five weeks trying to get answers from the FAA about how to make it legal again. On Aug. 13 the company sent an email telling the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate that it planned to resume flying its Alouette. After five weeks of silence, the agency responded the following day with the emergency revocation. Marpat appealed the revocation and that means a hearing must be held. Altizer said there is no safety of flight issue, as the Alouettes have shown themselves to be reliable aircraft. He said he hopes the hearing will require the FAA to reveal why it's gone to such extreme measures to ground aircraft that don't appear to be a threat to anyone.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: East of the sun, west of the moon, straight on till morning
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when has the FAA dictated an approved method of tracking time life's? If you adequately track components, who cares? They have no say in that.
Something smells fishy to me. Used to be they were mostly a good bunch of folks who would help you out. Now it seems they are obsessed with finding discrepancies and fining people. Mostly peopled by folks who couldn't make it in the real world anymore. Sure there are a few bright spots but they tend to shine though as the rest are just @$%^&@**!
If PHPI really are dirtbags then more power to the FAA but if this is just a witchhunt as seems to be the norm for the underfunded gubmint agencies these days then I sez go stuff yourself ya bastards!
Maybe someone can shed some light on the real story. Till then to quote the great Red Green...I'm pullin for ya!
Something smells fishy to me. Used to be they were mostly a good bunch of folks who would help you out. Now it seems they are obsessed with finding discrepancies and fining people. Mostly peopled by folks who couldn't make it in the real world anymore. Sure there are a few bright spots but they tend to shine though as the rest are just @$%^&@**!
If PHPI really are dirtbags then more power to the FAA but if this is just a witchhunt as seems to be the norm for the underfunded gubmint agencies these days then I sez go stuff yourself ya bastards!
Maybe someone can shed some light on the real story. Till then to quote the great Red Green...I'm pullin for ya!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the last few years the FAA has started issuing Operations Specifications for electronic record keeping. It was primarily for Part 121, 125, 133, 135 and 137 operators. It would not be a stretch for them to include Part 145 operators.
With many of the FAA inspectors having very little real experience, this is becoming more and more common. Like Air Trek, TAG, AMI, Marpat, Van Nevel and so on.
With the recent statements from the new Administrator, Randy Babbit, I believe that we will see more of this type of action until it blows up in the FAA's face. Earlier this year a Federal Court ordered the FAA to pay Air Trek's legal costs resulting from the FAA's actions against Air Trek. That should have been a wakeup call to the FAA. But it appears that it has not made an impression.
With many of the FAA inspectors having very little real experience, this is becoming more and more common. Like Air Trek, TAG, AMI, Marpat, Van Nevel and so on.
With the recent statements from the new Administrator, Randy Babbit, I believe that we will see more of this type of action until it blows up in the FAA's face. Earlier this year a Federal Court ordered the FAA to pay Air Trek's legal costs resulting from the FAA's actions against Air Trek. That should have been a wakeup call to the FAA. But it appears that it has not made an impression.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually find it amazing that Phoenix is being hauled over the coals as for as long as I have known Darin he has been a straight shooter and a straight up person. My guess is ******** against aviation are having some sort of witch hunt.
One thing that sticks out is this thing is supposed to have been from 2008 and yet here we are in 2010, why so long.
One thing that sticks out is this thing is supposed to have been from 2008 and yet here we are in 2010, why so long.
Picked up this press release Quote
Phoenix Heliparts Appeals Revocation of Part 145 Repair Station Certificate
Business as usual as individual employees' mechanic certificates cover MRO operations at Mesa facilities.
Mesa, AZ, September 10, 2010 – In response to the unexpected revocation of its repair station certificate by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Phoenix Heliparts' began the formal appeal of the agency's actions to the National Transportation Safety Board. As the appeal process unfolds, Phoenix will continue operations under its employees' individual part 65 mechanic certificates.
Phoenix Heliparts president, Tina Cannon, said, "Phoenix has made aggressive moves starting two years ago to improve compliance with critical facets of its repair station certificate; it installed new senior management, rewrote the company's quality manual, and voluntarily refrained from further maintenance under the repair station certificate while undertaking these changes. As a result, following our move to a completely new and expanded facility, FAA inspectors performed an audit of the manuals and facility and reissued the repair station certificate on June 21st of this year. Consequently, this revocation action comes as a complete surprise.
"The company is particularly gratified by the continued support of its worldwide customer base. The aviation industry understands that accusations by the government are easy to make and extremely hard and time consuming to defend.
"To imply our work is unsafe, as the FAA has done, is both wrong and harmful to our employees and customers alike,'' Cannon added. "Regardless of the FAA's actions and accusations, the company has instituted a very solid quality system and is using that system to ensure that its individually certificated mechanics can prove that every step is taken in accordance with the regulations."
The company's worldwide customers can rest assured the company will present a vigorous defence, and in the meantime, the quality workmanship it has provided in the past will continue today, tomorrow and in the future.
Media Contact
Jamie McIntyre
1-514-780-8525
[email protected]
Phoenix Heliparts Appeals Revocation of Part 145 Repair Station Certificate
Business as usual as individual employees' mechanic certificates cover MRO operations at Mesa facilities.
Mesa, AZ, September 10, 2010 – In response to the unexpected revocation of its repair station certificate by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Phoenix Heliparts' began the formal appeal of the agency's actions to the National Transportation Safety Board. As the appeal process unfolds, Phoenix will continue operations under its employees' individual part 65 mechanic certificates.
Phoenix Heliparts president, Tina Cannon, said, "Phoenix has made aggressive moves starting two years ago to improve compliance with critical facets of its repair station certificate; it installed new senior management, rewrote the company's quality manual, and voluntarily refrained from further maintenance under the repair station certificate while undertaking these changes. As a result, following our move to a completely new and expanded facility, FAA inspectors performed an audit of the manuals and facility and reissued the repair station certificate on June 21st of this year. Consequently, this revocation action comes as a complete surprise.
"The company is particularly gratified by the continued support of its worldwide customer base. The aviation industry understands that accusations by the government are easy to make and extremely hard and time consuming to defend.
"To imply our work is unsafe, as the FAA has done, is both wrong and harmful to our employees and customers alike,'' Cannon added. "Regardless of the FAA's actions and accusations, the company has instituted a very solid quality system and is using that system to ensure that its individually certificated mechanics can prove that every step is taken in accordance with the regulations."
The company's worldwide customers can rest assured the company will present a vigorous defence, and in the meantime, the quality workmanship it has provided in the past will continue today, tomorrow and in the future.
Media Contact
Jamie McIntyre
1-514-780-8525
[email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to 500E
I also was a victim of the FAA's witch hunt on these Alo's. Marpat was definitely no saint and they aggravated the FAA - hurting us even more. Import paperwork was not perfected and slipped thru the cracks for years. Then a few crooks, pulled 1 too many shady deals with these helicopters and the FAA and Eurocopter USA woke up. Thanks Fulton! The story of the FAA telling the DGAC not to release paperwork is a crock. The factory has that - but it is all on microfiche and they don't have a reader any more. So they have to get an outside source in to research and scan. Took time, but we got our paperwork. In fact, the DGAC wondered what the FAA's problem was and was on the owners side.
Bloody French and overhaul prices on the Alo's & Lama's components is so damn spendy it is tough to see a profit. That is if you go by the book on your maintenance!!
And the FAA inspectors had no idea on what they were looking at or understanding the French records or maintenance manual or even their own FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (changed it 3 times in such years trying to get it right prior to the lynching). Or Marpat chasing them (the FAA) with a shotgun in one hand and a bottle of moonshine in the other!
Bloody French and overhaul prices on the Alo's & Lama's components is so damn spendy it is tough to see a profit. That is if you go by the book on your maintenance!!
And the FAA inspectors had no idea on what they were looking at or understanding the French records or maintenance manual or even their own FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (changed it 3 times in such years trying to get it right prior to the lynching). Or Marpat chasing them (the FAA) with a shotgun in one hand and a bottle of moonshine in the other!
Last edited by captyankee; 14th Sep 2010 at 00:25. Reason: added title
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Phoenix
Age: 57
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think Twice
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']NTSB weighs not taking FAA’s word for granted
Posted on December 24, 2010 by David Pardo
Translation: “You’ve abused your discretion one too many times, FAA.” The status quo standard is very lenient to the FAA, allowing it to revoke the operator’s certificate and the NTSB would uphold such a move, provided the FAA doesn’t abuse its discretion.
Well, one too many abuses later and the NTSB decided to change this relationship, upping the stakes and changing the circumstances under which it would accept the FAA’s rationale.
Let the NTSB know what you think about this, here: http://tinyurl.com/26mfxbv
http://federalregister.gov/a/2010-32056
[/FONT]
Posted on December 24, 2010 by David Pardo
The NTSB is seeking public comments on the standards its administrative law judges use in deciding whether to overturn emergency revocation of airman certificates by the FAA.
…
One subject on which the safety board seeks comment is the section under Part 821 of the regulations that states a judge weighing a request to reverse an emergency revocation “should assume that the acts and omissions alleged in the FAA’s emergency order are true.”
…
The NTSB also seeks comment on the section of Part 821 that requires administrative law judges to ascertain whether the FAA’s action “was appropriate under the circumstances, given the potential threat to aviation safety,” rather than deciding whether the FAA emergency determination “was rationally supportable under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3569ff6f-1f7a-476c-9944-87d1cdce266d&…
One subject on which the safety board seeks comment is the section under Part 821 of the regulations that states a judge weighing a request to reverse an emergency revocation “should assume that the acts and omissions alleged in the FAA’s emergency order are true.”
…
The NTSB also seeks comment on the section of Part 821 that requires administrative law judges to ascertain whether the FAA’s action “was appropriate under the circumstances, given the potential threat to aviation safety,” rather than deciding whether the FAA emergency determination “was rationally supportable under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Translation: “You’ve abused your discretion one too many times, FAA.” The status quo standard is very lenient to the FAA, allowing it to revoke the operator’s certificate and the NTSB would uphold such a move, provided the FAA doesn’t abuse its discretion.
Well, one too many abuses later and the NTSB decided to change this relationship, upping the stakes and changing the circumstances under which it would accept the FAA’s rationale.
Let the NTSB know what you think about this, here: http://tinyurl.com/26mfxbv
http://federalregister.gov/a/2010-32056
[/FONT]
