US ‘Public Use’ aviation – what are the airworthiness implications?
OK, I understand that when government entities operate helicopters they can operate under “public use” rules.
As I read it these effectively mean that as long as the government entity in question is not using the aircraft for commercial purposes and is not competing with commercial operators - eg carrying persons or property for hire or reward (is ‘compensation or hire’ the favoured US wwording?), they don’t fall under the normal rules of civil aviation and do not require an FAA Airworthiness Certificate (FAA form 8130-7). This is what allows them to use ex military types (Forest Service Cobras, Police OH-58s, Sheriff’s SH-3s, Border Patrol OH-6s, etc) which may have no FAA certification.
Right so far?
Like military aircraft these government helicopters don’t fall under FAA oversight (except with regard to certain air traffic rules), they do not have Airworthiness Certificates and they answer only to their own internal airworthiness authorities. So they don’t need the piece of paper that gives a civilian aircraft its legal authority to fly, and which guarantees that the aircraft currently meets relevant and applicable maintenance and airworthiness standards?
Why would that matter? We all know that the military branches have their own robust airworthiness authorities and procedures - in some ways more stringent and more useful than the FAA’s.
But is the same true of other Government agencies, Police aviation departments and the like, which, as government entities, national, state, county and city aviation units are able to operate under the same public use laws as the military?
I know that some (perhaps even most) Police Departments have always been commendably professional and extremely rigorous – but because they are not compelled to be, some are not - or do not have to be. Is even the very existence of such a loophole acceptable?
Do they have the same expertise and/or infrastructure to develop their own training, maintenance and airworthiness oversight departments that the military take for granted? And even if capable, are they required to do so?
I know that an Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP) was formed about ten years ago specifically to address the maintenance issues surrounding the various aircraft being operated by non-military government entities. I know that this ICAP drew up a credible and respected maintenance programme for such aircraft.
But I believe that ICAP has no authority, and that the ICAP guide remains advisory in nature and is not enforceable. I know that 15 agencies have signed up to it, but that while these cover most Federal law enforcement helicopters, plenty of more local operators could (and do?) slip between the gaps. ICAP’s goal is to ensure that government operations are as safe or safer than commercial operations. Is it succeeding? Can it succeed without compulsion?
As if this were not enough, I understand that under public use rules not only are these aircraft not required to have Airworthiness Certificates, but their pilots are not required to be licensed by the FAA nor to hold an FAA medical certificate either.
But surely no government department would allow unhealthy, unlicensed pilots to fly unairworthy aircraft on public duties?
In one case that I was told about, a particular Sheriff simply found a couple of deputies who had flown in the military, and used them to form the basis of his new flight department. The story goes that they then trained further pilots on their own authority, including a new Commanding Officer.
“The first time I met the Sergeant in charge, she was flying an OH-58 into the local heliport for maintenance. It was so scary that people were running for the hangar to get out of the way, thinking that she was going to crash. It turned out that she had only about 10 hours of instruction time from one of the other ‘flying cops’ and no formal instruction. They can just get in and go.” One horrified onlooker told me.
Tell me that it’s urban legend, and could not have happened, please!
In an advanced industrialized nation like the USA, the expectation is that public service aircraft should set the standard for safe and efficient civil air operations. But is that expectation realistic?
Are there actually good reasons for resisting tighter regulation? I know that some police aviation units believe that forcing them to obtain an airworthiness certificate for their helicopters would be cost prohibitive, and would prevent them from fully carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities.
I know that some also feel that such regulation makes it more difficult to acquire useful ex-military assets which could not viably be sourced via the usual civilian market. Indeed it would be hard to see how the LA County Sheriff’s department (for example) could viably replace the capability offered by its SAR-roled US Navy surplus H-3 Sea Kings using a fully FAA-certificated platform.