Cowboy operators?
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
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.
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.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Rising to your own level of incompetance
Sadly, it would appear that some of the higher management in authorities appear to lose sight what they are really there to do.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: Canada
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!!!!
Perhaps this person offered other qualities - like modesty.
STOP PRESS: Thanks for reminding me Lu - they might also have be more consistant!!!!
Last edited by zalt; 18th January 2003 at 12:00.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Me, modest?
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.
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.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Aircrew (non-pilot)
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Oz
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.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: Canada
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.
trimpot's post suggest that perhaps the accident investigators need to be scrutinised too.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Are you a cowboy or are you just horsing around?
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稚 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稚 know if Heliport will allow this to remain but that痴 OK as it shows that there are some real shady operators out there in chopper land.
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稚 know if Heliport will allow this to remain but that痴 OK as it shows that there are some real shady operators out there in chopper land.
Senis Semper Fidelis
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: Lancashire U K
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!
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!
Gatvol
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,197
Likes: 1
From: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
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 hangar 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
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 hangar 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
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: Canada
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.
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.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
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
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
Gatvol
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,197
Likes: 1
From: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
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....
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: Canada
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.
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.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
It happens everywhere. Obfuscation rules>
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.
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.
Last edited by Lu Zuckerman; 19th January 2003 at 13:51.
Gatvol
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,197
Likes: 1
From: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
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.
"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.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. However if it is broke just try and fix it.
To: zalt
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知 72 years old and still active in the industry and I知 still shooting my mouth off and I知 still making suggestions however since I知 involved with the supplier of the equipment to the airframe manufactures my suggestions are being incorporated. Especially when they see how much I知 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稚 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, 添eah 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
Lu
I don't think Danny has the funds to take on a major American law firm.
Lu - time to be outspoken - whats the fix?
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稚 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, 添eah 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
Lu
I don't think Danny has the funds to take on a major American law firm.
Last edited by Heliport; 23rd January 2003 at 19:57.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
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.
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.
