Cowboy operators?
 

On the 'Heli Training Schools in Yorkshire' thread, Hoverman said 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.

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

I changed your quote in order to answer your question.
 

The answer to the above question isYES

:eek:

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 !!!!!. 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

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

<fx: Sigh>

Phil

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!!

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.

Who can you believe?
 

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:

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.

What do you want on your Tombstone?
 

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.

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:

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...

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?

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.

The sword of Damocles
 

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:

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.........

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.

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

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?

The sword of Damocles (read FAA) hangs over your head.
 

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: