Medway fined... bigtime.

[CaptainSpaz]

A friend of mine saw an article in today's USAToday, and I found this press release... FAA seems to really mean business.

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=7340

 

[Mason]

Now were they running air ambulance charters all this time without a valid 135 certificate?? How in the h*ll did they think they could get away with something like that.

 

[ackattacker]

Now were they running air ambulance charters all this time without a valid 135 certificate?? How in the h*ll did they think they could get away with something like that.

The issue is that they had placed their planes on AFG's certifiate "on paper", so they probably felt it was legal, i.e. the planes and pilots were "135". But the FAA felt differently. The FAA has been cracking down on this sort of arrangement. The FAA felt that AFG was not actually operating the flights and hence Medway was operating illegally.

 

[dhc8fo]

Yes, there was a big notice out around the June 2006 timeframe about this resulting from the TEB Challenger crash (can find the link if you are interested). Pretty much need your own operating certificate or the charter company managaing the plane has to have FULL CLEAR operational control.

 

[CaptainSpaz]

It is my opinion that there is more to the story, but they have decided to make nice and let Medway save face if they will cough up $1 million. I doubt they can pay it, will probably be tied up in court for years.

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

I used to fly for another company under AFG's certificate. I got out a year ago and at that time, AFG had operational control, maintained maint. records and all seemed on the up and up. The owner of AFG would give you the shirt off his back if you needed one and I hate to see this. Looks like things have really changed in the past year.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The FAA has a large, systematic problem. The FAA HQ writes the rules and has their interpretation of them.

Then, the FSDOs go out and all interpret the rules however they want, with no oversight from HQ FAA.

With the crash at TEB, HQ FAA realized that many companies, who were just charter brokers, were operating as if they owned aircraft and operated them for charter, when really it was some other company far removed from the company booking the trips and billing the clients. HQ FAA said this operation was illegal and they would crackdown.

The many companies, that hadn't been following the regs for years, were very upset, because they were operating the way their FSDOs asked them to. The FSDOs also went to HQ FAA and told them the way they were operating was OK and they had been doing it that way for years. HQ FAA told their FSDOs and the companies that the FSDOs were wrong, and the companies had been in violation all this time.

Obviously, it shouldn't have taken the FAA decades to "discover" that the rules were being interpreted by various FSDOs differently than FAA HQ wanted them to.

Hopefully the FAA as a whole will improve, and actually ensure that their regulations are being followed correctly by all the FSDOs and all the operators in the future.

cliff
YIP

 

[ackattacker]

With the crash at TEB, HQ FAA realized that many companies, who were just charter brokers, were operating as if they owned aircraft and operated them for charter, when really it was some other company far removed from the company booking the trips and billing the clients. HQ FAA said this operation was illegal and they would crackdown.

While I agree that there is a huge disconnect between Oklahoma City and the FSDO's, it is not as benign a situation as you describe. What you've described is a charter broker. The FAA has NOT been cracking down on Charter Brokers. The FAA doesn't give a rat's a$$ who books trips and bills clients. I could do it, so could you, so do a billion other companies. It's a huge industry. I could sell you an airline ticket too, that doesn't make me an airline.

What the FAA has been cracking down on is arrangements where a plane is put on one company's certificate but operated by another. In the Teterboro crash the FAA came down hard on both PlatinumJet (the owner of the plane) and AlphaJet (the holder of the 135 certificate). Here I quote from some lawyery website:

In its civil penalty action against Platinum, the FAA listed 11 factors establishing that Platinum, not AlphaJet, exercised operational control of flights. Platinum was responsible for: (1) providing the aircraft; (2) maintaining the aircraft; (3) providing and paying for its own maintenance personnel; (4) preparing and keeping maintenance records; (5) employing and dispatching the flight crew; (6) scheduling pilot and flight attendant training and maintaining these records; (7) conducting pre-employment and random drug testing; (8) preparing and submitting TSA criminal history record checks; (9) flight scheduling, including any charter; (10) paying AlphaJet a monthly “Part 135 certificate fee;” and (11) preparing and keeping records of trip itinerary and flight manifests using Platinum letterhead. The FAA also noted that Platinum was entitled to receive 90 percent of all charter revenues (10 percent was received by Darby d/b/a AlphaJet).

The best analogy I can come up with is this: Imagine if I started a new airline, "AckAttacker Air". I bought planes. I hired pilots. I hired office staff. I kept all the maintenance records and pilot records, set up a flight schedule, dispatched the flights, etc etc. Only, instead of going to the FAA and applying for an air carrier certificate I went to United Airlines and paid them a fee to "use their certificate". United Airlines tells the FAA that they operate my aircraft, but really they don't even know where they are located or who's flying them. Understandably, the FAA would find this arrangement a bit unsatisfactory.

 

[atpcliff]

HI!

Thanx 4 clearing that up. I heard that a large no. of cos. are doing as you described. I haven't heard much about them cracking down.

cliff
YIP