Data Plate swapper pleads guilty
Thread Starter
Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/06/30...opter-factory/NEWS
Chisinau
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.
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.
Moldova Shuts Down Bootleg Helicopter Factory
Madalin NecsutuChisinau
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.
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.
Thread Starter
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ft-parts-fraud
- September 24, 2020, 10:35 AMAfter admitting in court 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/
U.S. To Deport UK Man Convicted of Aircraft Parts Fraud
by Jerry Siebenmark- September 24, 2020, 10:35 AMAfter admitting in court 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/
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...
Last edited by Rigga; 28th Sep 2020 at 19:59.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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..
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/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.
Last edited by wrench1; 29th Sep 2020 at 19:45.
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...?
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...?
Thread Starter
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.
Just for reference, here is the current regulation pertaining to this activity;
§ 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.
(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines specified in part 34 of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in § 34.1 of this chapter, and a designation, approved by the FAA, that indicates compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34 of this chapter and 40 CFR 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), the statement “May not be used as a commercial aircraft 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 (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), and the notation “This aircraft may not be operated within the United States”, or an equivalent notation approved by the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft 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) 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) 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 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.
And here is a legal interpretation of the same from the NTSB Law Judges; https://shackelford.law/news-aviatio...ft-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)
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.
§ 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.
(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines specified in part 34 of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in § 34.1 of this chapter, and a designation, approved by the FAA, that indicates compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34 of this chapter and 40 CFR 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), the statement “May not be used as a commercial aircraft 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 (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), and the notation “This aircraft may not be operated within the United States”, or an equivalent notation approved by the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft 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) 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) 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 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.
And here is a legal interpretation of the same from the NTSB Law Judges; https://shackelford.law/news-aviatio...ft-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)
Last edited by Cyclic Hotline; 9th Oct 2020 at 15:27.
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter Repair
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.
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.
Last edited by Attorney; 18th Nov 2020 at 19:01.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apple international
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.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by T28B; 22nd Mar 2022 at 18:30. Reason: bold?
Thread Starter
Oh look, here's another group of innocent people doing nothing wrong! https://www.postguam.com/news/local/...d51ba57a9.html Helicopter fraud defendants answer to new federal charges
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
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.
- Nick Delgado | The Guam Daily Post
- Jan 29, 2021 Updated Jan 29, 2021
- ?subject=%5BGuam%20Daily%20Post%2C%2...n%3Duser-share
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%2...n%3Duser-share
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.
Last edited by T28B; 22nd Mar 2022 at 18:32. Reason: clean up of C&P
Thread Starter
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/5392...c-of-tennessee
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.
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/5392...c-of-tennessee
Press Release - FAA Revokes Repair Station Certificate of Apple International Inc. of Tennessee
NEWS PROVIDED BYFAA
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by wrench1; 24th Apr 2021 at 18:07. Reason: add sarcasm quotes......
I don’t believe that was written by a lawyer......
Thread Starter
The latest from Guam and Hansen.
https://www.postguam.com/news/local/...e04306bb6.html
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.
https://www.postguam.com/news/local/...e04306bb6.html
Chief pilot's case separated from helicopter company's trial
- John O'Connor | The Guam Daily Post
- 23 hrs ago
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.
Hansens and or Pacific Spotters
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 $$ per kilo after a devastating accident where the occupants had to be cut free of the wreckage.
The evidence from the former owner and from the manufacturer is that the helicopter was a total loss and could not be safely repaired. Hansen’s purchased the wreckage and using other scrapped parts, constructed a helicopter, using the data plate and log books from the wreck. The description by the US Prosecutor of “Frankenstein Helicopters” is most appropriate.
Shortly after Rafael began operating the helicopter on a fish spotting contract, the helicopter plummeted from the sky, and he died as a result.
Marvin Reed, Vice President of Hansen’s has admitted in evidence that he was aware that that the helicopter in which pilot Rafael Santos died, crashed due to counterfeit parts being used
Greed + Corruption = Death
Rafael Cruz Santos
Rafael was a highly regarded pilot with considerable experience. He had extensive active service in the El Salvador Air Force, including training with the US Military, was a graduate of the Air University at Maxwell Air Force base in Alabama, and he became the Chief Commander of the El Salvador Helicopter Squadrons. For two years was the personal Air Force pilot of the then President Burkard of El Salvador.
He joined Hansen’s and was given a newly prepared helicopter. Unbeknownst to him, the helicopter had been sold as scrap metal for $$ 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
Updated Indictment
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
Thread Starter
Pacific Spotters in the news again with yet another fatal accident, this time in the Philippines! https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/16/...-chopper-crash
Courtesy: 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
1 dead, 2 injured in Pampanga chopper crash
ABS-CBN News
Posted at Aug 16 2022 05:59 PMCourtesy: 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
