US ‘Public Use’ aviation – what are the airworthiness implications?

[Chas Edwards]

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.

[Gordy]

Long post for someone who is in another country--Chas--what is your agenda?

[Chas Edwards]

What's my agenda?

I've been dealing with people who are obviously passionate and worried about this, and I need to understand what they tell me more clearly, and to assess whether I'm getting a one-sided or skewed view from people who may have their own agenda. I have a sincere desire to educate myself, and there's nothing better than PPRuNe for getting the operator's perspective, and the perspective of the wider rotorcraft community.

And the whole way in which Government aviation is organised in the USA is very foreign to a Brit - the plethora of Government Departments and the bewildering array of Federal/State/County/City agencies (which differ from state to state) all make it very hard to follow.

Talking to State Troopers at Heli Expo it became clear that one state might have all Law Enforcement air organised at state level, while its neighbour might have a State Police air unit, augmented by county or city units, or both, or just 'local level' units. I didn't feel too bad about not knowing how it was organised, as the guys I was speaking to only knew how it was done in their state!

But I'd like to feel less woefully ignorant.

Over here, it's pretty simple - law enforcement agencies fly civilian aircraft, with the CAA certificating aircraft, maintenance and crewing, and the pilots (many of whom are ex-Mil) are all properly licenced CPLs or ATPLs.

The idea of plucking a Police Sergeant from the force and training him to fly on the air unit would not 'fly' here, and is therefore alien and interesting.

[Gomer Pylot]

The UK and the US have different governments, indeed different systems of government, and there is no reason for anything to be the same in the two countries. It is true that public use aircraft are not regulated by the FAA, and their pilots are not required to be licensed by it. That's the law here, like it or not. Most agencies require an FAA license, and maintain their aircraft in accordance with FAA practices, and the aircraft mostly have a standard airworthiness certificate. But none of this is required by law, and not all agencies abide by all, or indeed any, of these things. Surplus military aircraft are common in police agencies, and cost-cutting is not that unusual. If this frightens you, then by all means stay across the pond.

[No_7DAD]

Public Aircraft H.R. 2440 Oct. 25, 1994

Public Aircraft are operated by or for a government. The aircraft are operated and controlled by the public agency. In the US, the FAA does not have regulatory authority over the aircraft with two exceptions. The flight operations must still adhere to the Part 91 requirements, calling the tower, airspace, etc. and if the agency accepts compensation from another government agency for transport, that is FAA-controlled. The rest is as was noted by the earlier author. Just a small nit - there is no definition of Public Use that is codified. The only term is Pulic Aircraft as noted in the Law.

[jab]

I have no idea about the standard of training and I am sure it varies by agency and state. The issue of pilots not having FAA licences is no different to the military pilots of most countries who go through their system and earn a military qualification. These qualifications are normally obtained through hard work, sacrifice and dedication just like the civil guys and the standard of training is generally higher and more varied since there is more money available, does not mean civil instruction is inferior. They fly in the same airspace and conform to the civil rules to do so, just because they do not have a CAA issued piece of paper does not make them any less qualified or less safe.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that there is no formal training system for these agencies, simply because of US liability laws. Can you imagine the lawsuit if an agency helicopter crashes, for any reason, and injures or kills people on the ground? The pilot could sue the agency, even if it was blatant pilot error, and blame the accident on insufficient training.

Since the only pilots I know flying for a police agency are highly qualified with FAA licences, I am very curious to hear more about these rumours.

[SASless]

A short while back, we decided the Crown's way of doing things just didn't suit us....after a try at making salt water tea and some rather intense discourse....we kicked off a new approach to governance. It was founded on freedom and separation of powers so that inbred idiot offspring can not take power by mere rights of birth. We have to elect our idiots but at least it is the majority rule that does so.

Ours is a simple system if you understand it.....but one thing foreigners must understand....we don't care how you do it in Picadilly. We happen to like our own way of doing business.

One of the facets of our way of life here is we seek ways to make things happen....rather than seeking ways to frustrate progress.

Public Use operators generally exceed the requirements of the law and thus provide good value for cost in a safe manner. But then we see the law as being the minimum standard rather than try to write laws to cover every possible event.

Nick and I have had arguments about the role public use agencies should play but then he is in the business of selling helicopters where I see it from a taxpayers perspective.

[Gordy]

Nice answer Sasless.

Others have mentioned the liability aspect. This is what drives the system. I flew for a county SO and as such we were "public use"--having said that, I was flying a brand new 407 and myself and the other 2 pilots were all FAA licensed with more than enough hours. I do not know of any agency using non-FAA licensed pilots.

[Chas Edwards]

Yes SASless. (I can't seem to insert a rolleyes here!)

Of course the concept of democracy is entirely foreign to us here in Blighty.

When was it that you gave women the vote? 1920? (Two years after we did).

And how about extending suffrage to 18 year olds? 1971 (Two years after we did).

As to inbred idiot offspring, I thought that was a perfect description of GWB......

I wasn't criticising the US way of doing things, I was seeking to understand it.

I have some sympathy with those who resist the 'dead hand of bureaucracy' because of its stultifying effect on progress, though when it comes to aviation, I am a firm believer in the need for legislation and enforcement to cater for the 'bad apples', however rare they may be.

Cowboy methods are great if you're rounding up cows, but maybe the FAA is the right organisation for looking after aviation?

And if the law is a 'minimum standard' then where is the argument against the ICAP guide on maintenance being compulsory and enforceable?

Why shouldn't it be an absolute requirement that pilots flying public aircraft should have a CPL and a specified number of hours P1, perhaps with exemptions for military trained pilots?

Why not lay down minimum training standards?

[rick1128]

Having flown public use in the past, I have found that much of the misunderstanding is caused by urban legends. All the agencies I dealt with had much stricter requirements than the FAA. A great number of the 'public use' aircraft are not even owned or operated by government agencies. They are owned by private companies and operated under contract to various government agencies. And they still fall under Public Use. The agencies that do the contracting have strict requirements for maintenance, pilot qualifications, crew rest, etc.

As for bring police officers off the street into the aviation division, it makes much more sense to do that than try to teach a pilot all the streets, back streets and alleys. Plus they have their police experience to fall back on when on patrol. The police departments I have talked with do all their training in house and fell they maintain better control that way. And how each geographical area sets up their aviation sections depends on what works for them. And that is the way it should be.

[Gomer Pylot]

The short answer is that in the US, anything that isn't specifically prohibited is permitted, while in many locations it's the opposite, and anything that isn't specifically permitted is prohibited. It's a matter of philosophy, and each country decides its own philosophy. Brits shouldn't be questioning US laws, just as we shouldn't be questioning British laws. Things are the way they are here, and won't likely change anytime soon. We do have a constitution, which prohibits the federal government from exercising all the powers it might like, and many of us support that constitution. I've been relieved of my sworn duty to support and defend it, but I will still do so, as long as I have breath.

[Chas Edwards]

The idea that questioning this is somehow unacceptable is a mite disturbing.

Even constructive criticism should not be 'off limits'.

Because the lessons of how organisational arrangements affect safety transcend national boundaries - and those lessons need to be learned by everyone.

Safety is everyone's business, as they say.

And it's not as though I'm campaigning to change things in the USA, though I'm interested in the view that 'limiting the powers of the Federal Government' seems a more important aim to some than does maximising safety and professional standards.

This is a particularly interesting issue, as it is clear that the hands-off approach, relying on voluntary participation, works a lot of the time, and that many of these agencies do have much stricter requirements than are required by the FAA.

But not all, and there are clearly some operators whose standards fall below what would be acceptable in a commercial operator.

And I would question that the idea that the best way of recruiting Police pilots is from the ranks of beat policemen. The standards, skillsets and competences required for the two occupations are very different, and while I would not wish to disrespect Police officers nor put down the value of what they do, I would suggest that while anyone with the intelligence and skills to be an above average commercial helicopter pilot could probably learn the Policeman's job, the reverse is not necessarily true.

I am fascinated that people are reacting with anger and irritation to the fact that a foreigner is questioning the way things are done, and that almost no-one is answering any of the questions I've raised.

We're all aviators, and isn't safety the most fundamental issue that should unite us?

[Shawn Coyle]

Chas:
I used to favor the 'train pilots to be policemen' theory, until I actually flew with some policemen trained to be pilots. To make sure the scenario is set - they weren't doing anything more than patrolling from the air - no SWAT team insertions or Search and Rescue. The local knowledge of the area they worked, and the knowledge of police procedures and more importantly the radios and their methods of communication were far more valuable than any stick time. The helicopter was pretty simple to fly in comparison.
But if you're doing anything other than aerial patrolling, this needs to be re-thought.

[Chas Edwards]

Thanks, Shawn,

In the UK, Police helicopters routinely fly with a professional pilot and two trained Police observers who handle the police specific procedural and comms stuff.

The system seems to work very well.

[Shawn Coyle]

Chas:
Yes, but who is paying for it? The operation I saw was a joint venture by 5 communities who had two R-44s in the air Thursday thru Sunday night from 5 pm to 3 am, and one in the air other times. The additional cost for the aircraft (not the officers who were going to be doing something anyway) was paltry and never an issue for the community's budgets.
The salary for an additional professional pilot is not inconsequential, and someone has to pay that.
The helicopter, likewise was only as complicated as it needed to be (a Police version of the R-44) and it did the job very well (FLIR, Searchlight, specialist navigation system, all the radios).
By the way, these folks were very close to the Robinson factory and the aircraft were in the factory quite regularly for periodic maintenance.
The point is that taxpayers are paying for all this stuff -one turbine engine costs more than a police R-44, and salaries aren't small.
This is slightly off topic, but hopefully does shed some light on the subject.

[rudestuff]

Unfortunately in the UK the campaign agaist aviation - lets call it CAA for short - wouldn't dream of allowing the police to use anything with less than 7 engines that cost $5000 an hour to run... no matter what kind of reliabiliy/safety arguments you throw at them. No common sense. And the police are just as bad - they lock their police cars up at night...

[Chas Edwards]

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Police pilot.

I have, however, flown with Police pilots on operational sorties, and am entirely familiar with the very demanding nature of the job.

There may be circumstances where the use of a light, single piston helicopter is appropriate for police/law enforcement support, but I would suggest that such circumstances would be unusual.

I would further suggest that a professional pilot is worth his salary in this environment, and that someone with PPL levels of skill and experience would be unlikely to be able to undertake the role effectively or safely.

It would be cheaper for Southwest to employ PPLs as pilots, but no-one in their right mind would suggest that they should do so. Flying an airliner is beyond the competence of a PPL. The same holds true of police aviation - the job demands a professional pilot. And yes, you have to pay for that. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

I would always prioritise operational effectiveness and safety (both for the crew and for the public on the ground) over minimising cost to the taxpayer.

I would suggest that US attitudes to taxation and central government may be mitigating against giving airborne law enforcement the tools that it needs to do the job, and may be forcing some operators into sub-optimal practises and procedures, in a misguided attempt to pare spending to the bone.

[Chas Edwards]

For Police ops, you may be operating at night, in foul weather, hot and high, often over built up areas. You probably want to carry FLIR, Nitesun, loudspeakers, and perhaps a winch or fast rope system. You might want to be able to evacuate a casualty, or transport a police dog and handler.

Do you want a PPL doing that?

Are the more go-ahead air support units wrong in opting mainly for turbine twins?

Yes an R-22 or an R-44 is cheap but can it do the job, and can it do the job adequately and safely?

[rick1128]

Charles,

The other evening I attended the Eastern Region Helicopter Council meeting. The members are helicopter pilots from all over the eastern Mid coastal area of the USA. NY, NJ, CT, PA. While there I talked with several pilots for NY State Police, NYPD and NJ State police. First of all, none of these departments and no other that I have heard of uses private pilots. They are have Commercial or better. The requirements are strict. In many cases there is a waiting list. The officer must get his/her private on their own. Most get it in a fixed wing aircraft. When accepted into the program they fly as an observer and receive helicopter training. During this time period they are evaluated. Usually by several different training pilots. If they are deemed acceptable, they are then trained to commercial standards and certificated. After they have their commercial certificate they continue to fly with an instructor pilot and they swap 'legs' until the department is ready to turn them loose with an observer, usually an experienced observer.

For SWAT, rescue or similar assignments, they departments generally require certain levels of experience and ratings. Law enforcement aviation is a tough job, with little respect from anyone, they are proud of the job they do and work very hard to keep it as safe as possible. In fact, they formed an association to help in that. Considering that they fly a lot a night and over congested areas, their safety record is very good.

As for kicking the FAA around, I can do that, I pay part of their salaries. You don't see me kicking Britch CAA around, even though I believe that flying a 747 on a revenue trip from LAX to London with an engine out is not a smart or safe thing to do.

[Chas Edwards]

Good points, well made.

I absolutely concur with you re the 747 Trimotor incident.

However, I would violently disagree with your inference that only the taxpayers in a particular jurisdiction have the right to question or kick a particular airworthiness or safety body.

Safety is EVERYBODY's business, and where the CAA deserve criticism, someone's nationality should not prevent them from raising a concern.

We are all professional aviators, after all.

I also hear what you say with regard to the Law Enforcement pilots to whom you spoke. The problem does not come with those agencies who rigorously follow good practise without being compelled to do so. Minimum standards are there to legislate for the less scrupulous agencies who do not do the job properly. A Police Department that requires pilots to fly under supervision until they have a CPL and have completed adequate role training is 'doing it right' - but anecdotally it seems that there are a small number of air support units that do not.

Nor does a State Trooper office that uses new, fully certificated 412s and 407s, maintained 'regardless of expense' need to learn the lessons of operating helicopters with marginal performance in this challenging role. But a Sheriff's department operating an R44 or an Enstrom might well need stern and robust 'guidance', if not legislation.