PLT COMPANY MGMNT VENDETTA.

Date: 1995-07 · Aircraft: Jet Ranger All Series Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: ground

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|other-unspecified

Synopsis

PLT COMPANY MGMNT VENDETTA.

Narrative

AS A PLT FOR A PART 135 AIR TAXI OPERATOR WHOSE PRINCIPAL INVESTORS OR THEIR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES OR RELATIVES HOLD PVT PLT LICENSES OR SIMPLY WISH TO FLY; I HAVE BEEN PRESSURED TO SURRENDER THE CTLS AND PERMIT THESE UNQUALIFIED PERSONS TO OPERATE THE ACFT. THE UNQUALIFIED PLT WAS ALLOWED TO FLY THE ACFT; SOMETIMES WITH ADDITIONAL PAX; ON WHAT WAS; IN REALITY; A COMMUTER FLT BUT WAS WRITTEN UP AS A PART 91 OP. ONE CANNOT SAFELY ACT AS AN INSTRUCTOR FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ROLE OF STUDENT. WHEN THE 'INSTRUCTOR' IS A PROFESSIONAL COMMUTER CAPT WHO DOES NOT GENERALLY ACT AS CFI; AND IS ESSENTIALLY TOLD BY HIS PART 135 EMPLOYER TO TAKE THE 'STUDENT' UP AND LET HIM PLAY OR FACE DISMISSAL; THERE IS GREAT PRESSURE TO PARTICIPATE IN INHERENTLY UNSAFE OPS. ONE SOLUTION MAY BE TO REQUIRE ALL AIR TAXI OPERATORS TO DISCLOSE WHETHER ANY PRINCIPALS HOLD AIRMAN CERTIFICATES AND TO PROHIBIT PAX IN ANY TRAINING OP AND TO SCRUTINIZE WHETHER COMMUTER FLTS ARE BEING PASSED OFF AS PART 91 OPS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WORKED AS A HELI PLT FOR A COMPANY WHICH; ACCORDING TO RPTR; COERCED ITS PLTS TO FALSIFY RECORDS (LOGBOOKS; MAINT DISCREPANCIES; ETC.); AND TO ALLOW NON-QUALIFIED PLTS FLY THE ACFT WITH PAX ON BOARD. THAT THE COMPANY USED THEIR HELIS AS A HOOK TO GET WEALTHY INVESTORS INVOLVED; WHO EITHER WANTED TO FLY THEMSELVES OR HAD CHILDREN WHO DID. DURING 1 OF THE OCCASIONS WHEN HE WAS FORCED TO ALLOW A NON-QUALIFIED PLT TO TAKE THE CTLS; AND DURING START HAD FAILED TO UNTIE THE BLADES; THE ACFT WAS DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT OF AN ACCIDENT. THE PLT WAS FIRED. HE THEN WENT TO THE LCL FAA FSDO TO RPT THE NUMEROUS INFRACTIONS BEING COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY AND THE FAA SUBPOENAED THE COMPANY RECORDS WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROVED THE RPTR'S CHARGES. EVIDENTLY THE COMPANY OWNER WAS ABLE TO WIELD SOME INFLUENCE WITH THE FAA REGIONAL OFFICE TO IGNORE THE INVESTIGATION. RPTR HAS AN ATTORNEY AND; IF NO ACTION IS FORTHCOMING; PLANS TO EXPOSE THE COMPANY AND FAA TO THE MEDIA. GOOD LUCK.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.