Cowboy operators?

[Heliport]

On the 'Heli Training Schools in Yorkshire' thread, Hoverman said ".......... I'm sure we know operators who get away with murder despite what everyone in the industry knows they get up to.
Some people put one foot wrong and get done, whilst the cowboys seem to get away with anything however many inspections they get."

It's often said in the industry that some operators, to use Hoverman's expression, seem to 'get away with murder' (a very common expression not meant literally obviously) even when those in the industry know they frequently break or bend the rules.

Do you think that's true?

Is there really a problem?

If so, in what way could the system be improved?

Does the CAA spend too much time nit-picking trivia and insignicant errors by good responsible operators, and not enough time sorting out more serious problems?
(I've used the CAA as an example. The questions apply to all aviation authorities. It would be good to have views from members worldwide. There may be different answers from different countries.

This probably doesn't need saying but, please don't mention any names in replies.

[Up & Away]

Heliport What you are asking for IS Dangerous!!

Hoverman could not have been speaking literally 'get away with murder indeed'.

The CAA do as much as is reasonably practical.
Freedom to fly as we do has a price and its called resposibility.

On your oun Head Heliport.

Thank you Up & Away. I'll certainly bear your advice in mind but, at the moment, I can't see what "IS Dangerous" about the topic.
I've found over the years that the overwhelming majority of people who post on this forum are responsible adults who know what is/is not acceptable, and can be left to use their own good sense. Surely we all have to make far more difficult and important judgements every day than what we can/cannot properly post on an internet site?
If my confidence turns out to be misplaced, I assure you either PedalStop or I will take appropriate action.
Rotorheads depends on all members, not just the Mods. If the majority of members share your view that this topic shouldn't be discussed, we'll close the thread. If they think it's not worth discussing, the thread will die a natural death.

I thought it was obvious Hoverman didn't mean murder literally but, just in case anyone else shares your uncertainty, I've now made that clear in the original question.

As for your comment about freedom and responsibility, I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

Heliport

[Lu Zuckerman]

Does the FAA spend too much time nit-picking trivia and insignicant errors by good responsible operators, and not enough time sorting out more serious problems?

The answer to the above question isYES

:eek:

[All Blacks]

In this part of the world, OZ, NZ and even PNG the efforts by CAA and CASA are at most times, a joke. And thats being nice. I could name you, without blinking various cases where they have been told point blank about specific operators screwing the system (not logging hours, falsifying hours, flying without AOCs, operating aircraft that dont comply etc etc) and do they do anything about, not in the least, even though they have been given hard evidence. Their reactions, go and get stuck into a legit operator because he hasnt dotted the i and crossed the T.

And the icing on the cake for operators in NZ is that you have to PAY for the privilege of the CAA doing an audit on you.

Another issue that was recently explained to me is the operation of Russian equipment in PNG. Seems like it doesnt meet the rules and regs of the PNG civil aviation requirements, and yet they are still allowed to operate, go figure that one.

Anyway the amount of examples could fill this page and many many more. CASA and CAA say they are overworked, what a crock of Sh*t. Now hopefully since CAA in NZ have got some helo people in management positions it might change for the better, but I doubt it.

AB

P.S. Know what CASA stands for C**ts Against Safe Aviation

[paco]

If I was an inspector I could ground at least 5 operators in 2 countries right now.

<fx: Sigh>

Phil

[Moneyshot]

There is always the risk, I suppose, of organisations developing a 'cosy' relationship with their relevant National Authority. This could lead to some questionable 'box-ticking, 'rubber-stamping,' over-looking,' letting-go' and general 'easing through' of legal paperwork. Wouldn't happen here of course!!

[Rotorhead]

And we thought we were the only ones with these "troubles". Seems like it`s pretty common all over, - check out ZU-Bell 205 flying pax in the African Forum

Ho Hum, when in doubt have another beer.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Hopefully this will pass muster now that the lead post has been modified.

I informed the FAA about several serious design faults in a major commercial aircraft design. It took the FAA four months to respond and when they did they said the DGCA informed them that the design had been changed. I checked and found that the DGCA was not being truthful to the FAA. I wrote a second letter and when the FAA did respond the Vice President and senior program manager were fired. The design was never changed so those aircraft are flying with those defects waiting to manifest themselves. If one of the problems manifests itself resulting in the loss of the aircraft the NTSB will have a field day tearing into the FAA and the DGCA as will the lawyers..

This same aircraft is also flying in violation of the CAAs rules about the usage of bearings in certain applications.

:rolleyes:

[zalt]

SKYWOLF "I have given the CAA proof that a certain helicopter has been flying illegally. They have done nothing. The whole thing stinks of corruption."

Have you had the bottle to put it in writing? If not you can't expect much and if you have then copy it direct to Richie Profit, the Head of SRG at Gatwick and the Head of Enforcement in London and ask for an explaination of what action the CAA is taking.

If neither respond within 2 weeks copy the DfT and your MP.

Of course if you can back up you suggestion of CAA corruption you should just go to the Police and not bitch on the internet.

But recalling your past posts asking for the reg of the 'MI6 Jetranger' and on low level radar coverage in Yorkshire perhaps you need to pull your imagination back to flight idle.

MORE GENERALLY:
When I've been audited by the CAA the only nit-picking has been when they've found a big shortcoming that we'd not (but should have) spotted and they want to get the message across subtly that we'd missed a trick.

When I do sub-contract audits its a neat way of seeing when the penny drops that there is a bigger problem and how willing the auditee is to acknowledge the bigger problem.

Heliport, I think you looking in the wrong direction asking 'can the campaign/feds/c**ts route out the cowboys better?'.

IMHO the reality is that even the real cowboys are also 'professional pilots / engineers' and everytime they come a cropper there is always some one on this site who will defend them as decent guys (e.g: drug smugglers 'who I'd buy a drink for when he's let out' or engineers 'who's only oversight was not to read the limitations in the manual').

Up & Away said:
"The CAA do as much as is reasonably practical.
Freedom to fly as we do has a price and its called resposibility."
I for one agree.

[Lu Zuckerman]

The FAA operates using a tombstone mentality. That is they will take action only after the fact but even then the action they take is limited by the cost to the operator. The NTSB will investigate turning over every stone until there are no stones left. They will analyze the data until they reach a point where the exact cause of a crash is identified. They will present this data to the FAA and make the necessary recommendations to prevent the problem from occurring again. Does the FAA take the recommendations of the NTSB? The answer is in most major accidents they do not. Instead they do a cost benefit analysis to determine the financial impact on the operators of that type of aircraft. The NTSBs recommendations go unheeded and the whole thing starts over the next time an aircraft is lost for the same reason. It is my opinion that the NTSB protects the flying public and the FAA protects the operators that fly the public.

[CyclicRick]

Cowboying?
I've worked for 6-7 companies here in Germany alone as a permenant or freelance pilot and there hasn't been one of them that has not "bent the rules" at one time or another which includes not logging hours, sending out machines with overrun times or even sending off a PPL to "get the job done".
I think, to be fair most of it is not malicious, it's just a matter of surviveability in a dog eat dog world out there. Most of them can't and couldn't keep going without some skullduggery.
When you look at very small operators with maybe 1-2 helicopters and only one pilot and then take a look at JAR-OPS workload it's almost impossible to be perfect. The system desperately need simplifying to enable these kind of people to keep up and stay legal and most of all safe.
I think if we all flew exactly "by the book" then there wouldn't be very many machines up in the air at all and I am NOT condoning ANY malpractice before you all start :rolleyes:

[B Sousa]

Cyclic Rick and Lu Zuckerman (with one N) are pretty close to being exact... There are not many companies that could withstand the weather after a visit by a conscientious FAA Inspector or if they have Government contracts, someone from OAS. Knowing those folks and how they work its not going to happen anytime soon. They usually only react when things come down from above or when it may cause problems in the media. We call it "The Tail Wagging the Dog." If someone went out and did thorough inspections, he would stand out like a Diamond in a Goats Ass and would probably lose his job for upsetting the Apple Cart.
Given that, things will continue run as they are now. When someone gets killed, "The Government" will be there...

[zalt]

B Sousa - I'm not sure Cyclic Rick and Lu Z are saying the same thing so they may not be that close!

I read CR as saying (and apologies if this is not what was meant CR) that good and honest pilots in small operations can make minor non-compliances with overly complex rules. Answer improve the rules not inspect more.

Whereas Lu is suggesting that the FAA and DGAC ignore his claims because they are afraid they may cost big business. Answer improve the authorities and make them tougher (or at least more transparent).

B Sousa - want to give us your personal experience of where the feds have not been conscientious? What would they have found where you work if they had looked hard?

[Shawn Coyle]

No one likes to be unpopular, or be wrong.
Is there a way to make your point and have a good nights sleep if you find a problem?
Sure.
Put it in writing to the lowest level in authority that you know of, with a non-disclosure statement if you like, but the authority will probably have something like this anyway.
If you like, put a cc:your lawyer.
Stick to the facts, don't get agressive in the tone, and don't jump to conclusions. Also do your homework to make sure you are right.
Make sure you send it registered mail, and keep a copy. In fact, you might mail a copy to yourself, and do not open the letter- that way you have proof of when you sent it to the authority.
If you don't have an answer in a reasonable period of time, send another letter with a copy of your first to the highest person in the authority, again registered mail. In this letter, ask when you can expect a response as you have had none to your previous letter.
The linear s**t accelerator will take over at this point, and you should have some sort of answer pretty soon.
You may not be popular, but at least you have done what you think is correct.
Having a letter on file on the subject is pretty haunting to the authority, because if there ever is an accident that could be traced back to them not taking action, they are culpable (or at least a good lawyer could make a case for that).
And you would be sure to let the press know that they should do a freedom of information access request (or whatever it is known as in your country) to dig out the issue.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Having a letter on file on the subject is pretty haunting to the authority, because if there ever is an accident that could be traced back to them not taking action, they are culpable (or at least a good lawyer could make a case for that).

That is exactly what I did in order to get the FAA’s attention. In my second letter I told them that I was absolving myself of any responsibility* and passing the problem on to them. I also told them that if an accident occurred and it was traced to the problems outlined in my letter I would offer my services to the legal teams taking the company and the FAA/DGCA into court. Based on this perceived threat they went to the manufacturer of the system and as a result the VP and the program manager were fired. The design however was not modified so the problem still exists and the FAA now has two letters on file.

On a more recent note I obtained an AD on the same aircraft and it dealt with an inspection and possible changes of some of the parts based on that inspection. The whole procedure was ass backwards and was in total conflict with how the system was originally designed. I contacted the FAA and the Canadian MOT and both told me that the FAA version was translated from the French and the Canadians copied the FAA’s version. I told them of the possible error and the Canadians contacted the DGCA, as did I. I never got a reply from any of them and there is a possibility that the FAAs version has exacerbated the original problem that I told the FAA about several years prior to that time.

*In a tort case the trial lawyers can reach downward into the design and production staff in order to assess blame.


:eek:

[B Sousa]

Zalt..
Not necessarily WHERE I work, but where I have worked.
Not necessary to name names now, as its history. Anyone who has worked around the Utility Helicopter scene will have their own stories.........Conditions still exist, but since Im no longer in those places, its not my worry.........

[zalt]

Its easy to say there is a problem and to slag off the authorities (that's practically an olympic sport) but the most difficult of the questions at the start of the thread was:

In what way could the system be improved?

B Souza, I was hoping you could explain the problems you have seen that the FAA just can't or will not see. That at least would be half way to finding an improvement, but if you'd rather rubbish the entire US utility sector by association go ahead its no skin off my nose!

I seem to have a more troubled conscience then some. If I truly believed that there was an operation that put lives at serious risk (and I assume that is what we are debating) I'm not sure having a registered post receipt would make me sleep soundly. Walking away after setting up some FOI or surveyor at the bottom of the heap up for a kicking if they fail (in the hope their bosses get it too) sounds too much like becoming part of the problem.

[trimpot]

A few years back I was crew on a SAR Helo in Australia. We were called out to a crash, pilot injured and the passanger dead. The pilot (who was the owner/operator) was notorious in the industry for shoddy maintenance and practices. At the scene of the crash, along side the dead body of the passanger, we found two sets of maintenance documents:mad: These were photographed and the info passed onto CASA. The end result is that CASA did NOTHING.
Even though it was also established that the helo was returning to it's base after last light and was over max gross at the time, the pilot in question was back flying as soon as his injuries had healed.

In short you can get away with murder!

I've removed heli type and reference to location.
Heliport

[zalt]

trimpot - didn't any of this make the BASI/ATSB report?

The accident investigations aren't meant to finger blame, but they are supposed to identify changes to prevent future accidents.

Now it would probably be widely accepted that in this sort of case some of the recommendations would be on how to improve the regulatory system (a la Seaview, Air Ontario and all other such landmark investigations).

But one aspect of the authorities activity that is rarely considered is who they give licences to. Perhaps it is only a logical extension of accident/incident recommendations that in the extreme scenario that trimpot describes, the ATSB (as an example) recommend that CASA withdraw a person's licence (i.e. directly remove the hazard).

Now I don't expect that musing to be popular (even though it fits with the implications of other peoples postings quiet well), and I don't really like it myself because it would tend to influence the responses the investigators got and hinder the search for the truth. However it has a certain directness that we would expect the investigators to take when recommending (say) an AD to fix an aircraft defect.

PS: trimpot There is a recent Rotorheads thread on the British Crown Prosecution Service attempting a manslaughter prosecution after a fatal accident. Presumably a similar legal action could have be attempted independent of CASA by the state under Australian law in the case you describe?

[Lu Zuckerman]

This was posted by I.M. Esperto on another thread on PPRuNe.

FSDO Folly: DOT Report: FAA Harassed Pilot...
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_03b...182335-1.html#2
FSDO Folly
DOT Report: FAA Harassed Pilot...
FAA officials harassed a Missouri pilot for no good reason, causing stress that was cited by the NTSB as a factor in a fatal accident, and then failed to properly investigate charges related to the crash, DOT Inspector General Kenneth Mead reported this week. The report, undertaken at the request of Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, cites "evident bias and deficiencies in FAA's investigation" following the December 1999 crash that killed Joe Brinell, former College of the Ozarks director of aviation, and five others. The Cessna CitationJet hit a hillside about four miles from the runway when it descended below the minimum altitude on a GPS approach into M. Graham Clark Airport at Point Lookout, Mo. "The IG's findings underscore what we've long believed," Blunt said in a news release Monday. "The FAA apparently harassed Joe Brinell ... [and] to make matters worse, either by negligence or in a coverup, FAA inspectors abused their regulatory authority."
...Then, FAA's Investigation "Gave Rise To The Perception Of Bias"...
The NTSB's June 2001 report concluded that the crash resulted from pilot error under adverse weather conditions; however, it also cited in its investigative findings "pressure induced by others -- FAA inspector." Brinell's widow asked for an investigation into the FAA's treatment of her husband. While the FAA cleared itself in an internal probe, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) ultimately launched its own investigation and found fault with the agency. The internal FAA investigation concluded that while at least some of the Kansas City FSDO's actions concerning Brinell were not warranted, the FDSO was "not remiss in its oversight responsibilities or abusive in exercising its empowerment ... and the actions taken by the FSDO [Supervisor] were appropriate." Not satisfied with this report, Blunt requested the investigation by the Office of Inspector General. The OIG found "an evident lack of objectivity and an underlying bias in favor of FSDO personnel -- against whom the allegations were made -- thereby compromising the integrity of FAA's investigation." The OIG then undertook its own investigation of the original charges against the FSDO -- that staffers had harassed Brinell unfairly, thereby subjecting him to stress that may have contributed to the accident. "In reviewing [the FSDO's] actions," the OIG report says, "we found that they were unwarranted and the FSDO's justification lacked credibility."

...And OIG Recommends FAA Should Take Action Against Staffers
"This is the third investigation we have completed over the last three years involving fatal general aviation accidents and alleged improprieties on the part of FSDOs," says the OIG report. "In the two prior cases, we found that FSDO personnel were remiss in carrying out their regulatory duties. Our findings in this investigation are consistent with those of the previous two cases." The DOT report recommends that the FAA should exercise disciplinary and administrative action against the supervisor and inspector in the Kansas City office, including demoting the supervisor. The report also says the FAA must institute policies and procedures for inspections of license holders. Also, the FAA should inform Grace Brinell (Joe Brinell's widow) and Rep. Blunt of actions taken in response to these recommendations. With a bit of hopefulness, Mead concludes: "We note that FAA's Regulation and Certification program, including the Flight Standards directorate, is under new leadership and we are encouraged by their responsiveness and expressed willingness to take appropriate action in this matter." Blunt also offered some optimism: "The good news in all of this is that we finally have the truth," he said. "And the FAA can get started, under new leadership, implementing standards for conducting investigations of this type. Situations like this one should never become more tragic as a result of a government agency's negligence or apathy."


:confused:

[Shawn Coyle]

Interesting juxtaposition of things. On one hand, we'd like the authorities to do their job, and on the other hand, we don't want them to get overzealous.
Calls for a great deal of wisdom on the part of the people in the authority - perhaps that's who really needs the selection process, not necessarily just us 'operators'.
How are people selected to be authority inspectors? Is there some other requirement than the necessary licence and experience? Any psychological assessment? Probably not.
I know of some instances in Canada where operations inspectors found problems and reported them to higher ups, who then ignored them, and while it is conjecture, the operators who were reported on had fatal accidents not long afterwards.
Sadly, it would appear that some of the higher management in authorities appear to lose sight what they are really there to do.
Like everywhere else, a lack of leadership is evident.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Sadly, it would appear that some of the higher management in authorities appear to lose sight what they are really there to do.

Many years ago I applied for a job as an accident investigator with the NTSB. I wanted to work in the aviation accident office. They read my CV and replied that with my experience on ships they were going to offer me a position in the Marine division. The position was at the GS-16 level, which is quite high. Most of my experience on ships was as a helicopter mechanic on icebreakers. I did attend a 16-week school on marine engines and I did work on a Buoy Tender but my knowledge and understanding of ship construction and marine engineering was very limited. The position was by presidential approval and I was being nominated for the position on the chance that a Democrat won. Instead a Republican won and their candidate most likely had equal or less experience that I and as a GS-16 this inexperienced individual was in a position of power. There are a lot of well-qualified individuals in the FAA as well as the NTSB but they are limited in their action by the bureaucracy of the organizations. The same is true when the NTSB recommends a change resulting from an accident and the FAA rejects it and even though they work for the same organization there is no oversight.

:confused:

[zalt]

Lu you say: "I was being nominated for the position on the chance that a Democrat won. Instead a Republican won and their candidate most likely had equal or less experience that I"

Perhaps this person offered other qualities - like modesty.

STOP PRESS: Thanks for reminding me Lu - they might also have be more consistant!!!!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: zalt

Modesty has never been one of my finer points. If you had been monitoring my posts for the last two years you will know that I am not modest. Outspoken, yes or even loudmouthed but certainly not modest.

Actually the point I was trying to make was that if I were hired as an aviation accident investigator I would have felt qualified but as a marine investigator at a GS-16 level I would have been in over my head. It was a political appointment and there were no considerations about qualification. That is why I made the comment about the guy that got the job. Hell for all I know he / she had a masters degree from the Coast Guard Academy in marine engineering.

:D

[trimpot]

My appologies heliport, I should not have included location or type. Zalt, a basi report was published but was so benign it was useless. Inquiries were made by myself and other on the crew but we were quietly told to pull our heads in. As a postscript, I believe the pilot in question killed himself in another accident some time later.

[zalt]

Shaun - Very thoughtful post I think you've hit the nail on the head by identifying the dilemma of regulation. However I'm think what you say about the upper echelons of the authorities is more significant than getting a bunch of 'ologists to devise a battery of selection tests for inspectors.

trimpot's post suggest that perhaps the accident investigators need to be scrutinised too.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Here is a real cowboy operation. This firm was based in the Los Angeles area and operated helicopters in Alaska and South and Central America. They had obtained two crashed hulks (S-55s) with a useable front end and back end between the two. They rebuilt the fore and aft sections without the use of jigs and fixtures. When they put the two elements together they were totally out of line. I talked to several pilots that flew the helicopter and they said it just did not fly right and they had to use a lot of tail rotor input and a lot of cross control. Upon completion they sent it down to Central America to avoid the scrutiny of the FAA. I got involved with this company as a consultant on the rebuild and conversion of an Israeli H-34 into an S-58-T. My background at that time included being a tech rep on the S-58 and running a training program on Sikorsky helicopters for the US Army. They did not want to send the dynamic system and power train system back to Sikorsky. They wanted to use the existing elements with out extensive work. The dynamic components were full of fine sand and the bearings appeared to be shot. Purging with grease did not remove the roughness. They had already reworked the engine compartment to accept the turbine engines and combining box. I asked them if the FAA had certified the H-34 as an S-58 and they said no. I told them that it had to be certified as an S-58 before they could convert it to an S-58-T. It went right over their heads or, they just didn’t care about getting the FAA involved. Needless to say, I severed the relationship.

I had mentioned this on Just Helicopters some time ago and I was told that this aircraft is gathering rust and moss somewhere in Alaska. I was not told if it ever went into service.

This company is still operating and their name is B****s. I don’t know if Heliport will allow this to remain but that’s OK as it shows that there are some real shady operators out there in chopper land.

:eek:

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good morning to all Rotorheads,

The Heli training company that I used had a really nice bunch of people, it had some very experienced senior pilots and a handful of very good tutors, but the owners of the company dicatated what happened and what took place, as I progressed from raw pupil to a full PPL(H) I saw things that at the time seemed commonplace within that company, the simplest was the Tec-log with hours that didn't add up, the hour meter not connected, tec-log missing, bolts and nuts lose on engines or even missing altogether, as I gained in experience and knowledge I started to feel that my wellbeing would be served better by me carrying out the most rigourous of pre-flights even to the point of going under the machine to tap random nuts and bolts like my older rels used to do on the railway steamers, this gave me the feeling that I had done as much as I could have done to have a safe flight, however you can never accept that as a full health check on any flying machine, and eventually I did come unstuck by taking a machine up that I had "checked" only to find out that on a previous flight this craft had been the subject of a massive overspeed and the rotor head bearings appeared completely goosed, after the most demanding and shortest flight of my life I managed to get down in one piece, the tech log was strangely missing from when I had looked at it some forty minutes earlier to when I went back to the office, the excuse being that the boss man had taken all logs home to check them out, I never did see that book again until some weeks later I asked to see it so I could enter my flight, comments and signature, however it seems that A N Other had signed on my behalf, and to boot there was no ref to the overspeed that occurred on the ealier flight.

Needless to say I no longer fly with that company, but the sad thing is that when I rang the CAA to ask for advice on what to do about this they simply told me to take it up with the owners of the company! That would be like asking Uncle Saddam to evaluate the meaning of the word TRUTH.

On that fateful flight I was treating a friends son to a birthday flight, that worried and angered me more than the risk against my life. Sadly this company had been involved in a fatal incident earlier in that year and it seems the CAA had picked up nothing!

[B Sousa]

Zalt
Lou mentioned a company above with the S-55s and the S-58. A perfect example .......
And Lou The S-58 was sitting behind the Hanger in Fairbanks as of a couple years ago........Real Junk but Im sure somewhere in the paperwork it had Tax Value........... It was right next to a couple balls of Aluminum that once looked liked 500s. Its under one of B*****s sub Companies. T****A C******S

[zalt]

Vfrpilotpb - don't want to harp on - but which bit of the CAA did you complain to and did you ever put a complaint in writing?

I'm sure the CAA are used to mischief makers trying settle professional and commercial scores by making false accusations and the 'filter' is probably to see if the complainant is serious enough to act like a witness and make a formal statement.

However what disturbs me the most is that some 'very experienced senior pilots and a handful of very good tutors' were seemingly happy to put up with the irregularities.

Did you follow it up? You obviously have considered the risks to third parties (your friend's son) why not do it now? PLEASE

B Sousa - Lu's given a really 'good' (i.e. chilling) example of a cowboy operation (er just realised the thread title may not travel well....!). But if seems they 'didn't care about getting the FAA' involved (presumably aiming to keep the FAA in the dark) and the aircraft was moved to Central America. It is hardly an example of something being condoned by an FAA inspector who doesn't want to embarrass his peers by being conscientious.

[paco]

vfrpilotb -

The CAA sometimes take notice - similar things happened to me when I was Chief Pilot of a very well known company in the South - I had snagged a PA31 which all of a sudden was fixed by the owner with the stroke of a pen. I was invited to lunch with two very nice Ops Inspectors the day after I quit.

It's a shame that the good companies are are brought down by this, and it's even more of a shame that it's still happening.

phil

[B Sousa]

Zalt, maybe to make it easier. After having blown a whistle or two and had it backfire due to lack of support from "da Gubament"; and if you think folks are going to cite specific examples and name companies HERE while still being employed in the Helicopter industry..........then maybe you do believe in the Tooth Fairy....

[zalt]

B Sousa: I didn't ask you to name names and its clear that even if you did inadvertantly drop hints that were too specific our dear modbod would be out with the blue pencil to avoid rammifications.

Other people however in the meantime have managed to articulate scenarios that at least give us some common reference point.

All I wanted was some clue why you think that if an FAA inspector:
".. went out and did thorough inspections, he would stand out like a Diamond in a Goats Ass and would probably lose his job for upsetting the Apple Cart."

Finally we have one reason, you (and I summarise): believe the FAA are ineffective because they don't support whistleblowers.

Attempting to move forward then: Would it be better to have an independent agency to investigate suspected wrongdoing within aviation companies? After all accidents are investigated seperately.

Also: Are we all too worried about being seen as troublemakers if we actually report such major problems?

Heres another thought, in the UK would anyone make a confidential report to CHIRP if they got no satisfaction from the CAA? At least only the two or three people in CHIRP will know who you are and the authorities can't hide from the report.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: zalt

It happens everywhere. Things are covered up and on occasion firms do not follow the rules. I mentioned previously my confrontation with the FAA on the design defects on a commercial airliner. On that same contract the company that made the flap slat computer refused to follow the directions of the aircraft manufacturer. They stated that in order to get Canadian certification every single element in the equipment undergoing FMECA analysis had to be accounted for. The computer manufacturer stated that it would be both time consuming and expensive. Their FMECA was useless and did not account for piece part failures and their effect on the computers operation. Because of differences with the designers of the flap system the computer manufacturer supplied the flap designer with a bare bones computer that would only allow extension and retraction of the flaps on the iron bird. This meant that the flaps were inadequately tested and as such should not have been certified yet the DGCA and the CAA certified the design. On the first revenue flight to Cairo the pilot could not retract the flaps and the aircraft had to return to base in Germany in non-revenue status. The computer was incapable of recognizing a fault and could not respond to the fault.

On one contract I worked on (Ships) I identified that one of the subcontractors did not comply with the US Navy requirements for the removal of motor bearings. On this ship there were 1400 electrical motors ranging from fractional horsepower to motors of 750 horse power. The motor manufacturer had produced three shipsets without having the design approved.

It just happened that the subcontractor was a division of the parent company designing the ships. If the 4200 motors were to be redesigned to comply with the Navy requirements the company would have to absorb the costs. The problem was taken to the top corporate level. The ship and its components were on a two-year warrantee and the top level took a chance that the bearings or motors would not fail in the two-year period. If a motor failed then the firm would replace the motor because the bearings could not be replaced without destroying them. If any failures occurred after that period the Navy would have to eat the costs. Some time later I contacted the Navy office of criminal investigation. They told me that they could not do anything about the problem. Then, they asked me if I would like to be an informant for them.

On a helicopter program I identified 27 different design problems that would have an effect on operational reliability and maintainability. The assistant chief engineer held my letter to the Army, which was time sensitive until the time ran out. By that time it was too late and the design was frozen. On that same contract the R&M engineers were forbidden from talking with the designers. By contract the R&M engineers had to sign off on the design drawings. The engineering department would call the R&M engineers into a room and dump the drawings on the table and we were given one or two hours to sign off (we had to sign off) or the engineering department would sign off for us. When the helicopter went into service all 27 of the design defects I identified manifested them selves along with many other that would have been picked up had we been able to monitor the ongoing design. The helicopter proved to be very difficult to maintain and it was very unreliable.

In the defense industry the ground is strewn with many rocks. Pick any one of them up and you will find some level of deceit or subterfuge. Hell for that matter check the government rocks and the rocks of the agencies of the government.

:eek:

[zalt]

Lu - time to be outspoken - whats the fix?

[B Sousa]

Zalt
"Also: Are we all too worried about being seen as troublemakers if we actually report such major problems? "

Its a very small industry although it may not seem like it. Pilots post resumes all over the internet, but Im betting that most jobs are gotten from word of mouth or face to face with others currently employed who know each other.
You dont have to worry if you make trouble for a company. They all have black lists and I can guarantee that Chief Pilots all talk to each other. Cause a big stink and see what you can land as your next job..
At Least here in the States.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: zalt

Lu - time to be outspoken - whats the fix?

I have been involved in Assurance Engineering since 1968 and during that time I have shot my mouth off, made suggestions and even contacted the authorities or the customer of the contract I was working on. All to no avail. If there were a fix it would involve the major overhaul of the system, a major attitude adjustment of the individuals working within that system and a major adjustment of those elements that work within the system. I’m 72 years old and still active in the industry and I’m still shooting my mouth off and I’m still making suggestions however since I’m involved with the supplier of the equipment to the airframe manufactures my suggestions are being incorporated. Especially when they see how much I’m being paid and how much it would cost to redesign the element(s) being supplied under the contract.

Regarding making suggestions and /or shooting ones mouth off here is a story. Many years ago on the Bob Hope radio show there was a character named Jerry Colonna. He would always tell Hope of the problems he was having in the field. Hope would ask him why he didn’t tell anyone of the problems. Colonna would respond that he did tell the guys at the home office. And what did they say asked Hope? Colonna would say that the guys in the home office would respond, “Yeah we know, we know". Jerry Colonna is most likely dead but the problem is very much alive.

Here is another story. In these and other forums you have often heard people taking swipes at lawyers that hit manufacturers and operators for millions or more as a result of an accident. Well there is a legal firm in the United Statesthat is on retainer from firms that face potential expensive legal issues. As a part of the retainer they come into the offices of the manufacturers and conduct classes. In those classes they tell the client in the event of any legal activity they should destroy their records, they should hide or cover up any relevant records of testing, They should obfuscate any pertinent engineering information and if necessary to lie under oath. It seems that it works both ways and it is all a part of the system that needs changing.

The reason nothing ever gets done or things are never changed can be summed up in one word. MONEY
:confused:

Lu
I don't think Danny has the funds to take on a major American law firm.

[zalt]

Lu - were these lawyers on a retainer for Enron too??!!

[Shawn Coyle]

Very interesting and professional discussion.
May I make a further suggestion?
Since it seems that often the authorities don't want to get involved (or perhaps get too involved with some folks they really don't like), why not take it up with the insurance company?
They would probably like to know how close to the line their clients are operating, as it obviously affects the risk the insurance company is open to.
Sending letters to both the authority and the insurance company might be a way forward. Of course, if you are concerned about being branded a whistleblower, you might get the letters sent by a lawyer - "My client, who wishes to remain anonymous, etc..."
Might cost a bit of money, but if you draft the letter for the lawyer it might not be too expensive.

[S76Heavy]

sometimes it helps to go political as well. After all, most of them want to be re elected, don't they?