Serious Violations

[ultrarunner]

Makes you wonder about any pilots that ever worked there.
Like I said,I wonder how far the FAA will go back with these enfocements....

The Emergency Revocation of the Air Carrier's Operating Certificate is just the first step on the part of the FAA.

If the pilots haven't gotten Letters of Investigation already, you can count they are in the mail.

Two of the captains had a total of 10 violations related to knowingly accepting an assignment after failing a PC.

And there are several violations related to SIC's accepting int'l assignments without the proper certificate endorsements.

There's a couple hundred grand right there...figuring the FAA will ding 'em 10 grand for each violation.

And this does not even address the number of violations by the pilots for knowingly falsifying write-ups, or knowingly accepting an unworthy aircraft.

Airtek obviously is out of business, and will unlikely regain its certificate. And that's a good thing if the revocation document is even half true.

The pilots just found themselves looking for a new line of work.

That is a bummer it came to that.

 

[SENECAII]

or knowingly accepting an unworthy aircraft.

This is why NO ONE should be plastering how bad it was at AirTrek on the internet as they continued to work there......I am telling ya.....people are gonna go down hard now.
The person I fly with that used to work there is a bit worried about things but he didnt go posting about it IN PRINT on the internet.....he was hoping that it would all be behind him.
Heck,I dont know maybe he isnt really worried.....ya never know what us pilots are really thinking.

Bottom line is the pilots that worked at AirTrek and flew these unsafe planes in unsafe conditions,allowed AirTrek to remain in business.The Carrs could not have done it all by themselves.The problem being that the pilots went there with the attitude that it was just until another opportunity comes up so they just went along with things and allowed this thing to go on until someone got hurt and killed and planes got broken.Who's fault is this?The Carrs likely knew that they were in the wrong but they also know that the responsiblity was shared by all of the pilots they asked to fly their aircraft.

 

[kilroy]

[QUOTE="SENECAII, post: 1613358, member: 20674"]This is why NO ONE should be plastering how bad it was at AirTrek on the internet as they continued to work there......I am telling ya.....people are gonna go down hard now.
The person I fly with that used to work there is a bit worried about things but he didnt go posting about it IN PRINT on the internet.....he was hoping that it would all be behind him.
Heck,I dont know maybe he isnt really worried.....ya never know what us pilots are really thinking.

So what you are saying is if you have ever experienced a bad situation you should not warn others. So is it better to let others experience something you have went thru and let people put there life at risk then speak up.

If it wasn't for the many people that spoke up and let it be known the way Air-Trek operated then they would still be in business today. Yes I guess you can say it is all behind you and move on but that would only leave the door open for some one else to get hurt or another crew being put in bad situations.

Its hard for me to understand how some one would not speak up if there was a risk of injury or death. I guess we really don't know what some of you pilots are thinking.

 

[SENECAII]

So what you are saying is if you have ever experienced a bad situation you should not warn others. So is it better to let others experience something you have went thru and let people put there life at risk then speak up.

What I am saying is that people HAD to know way before they found new jobs and left the company.
How long were you there?....however long it was,can you sit there and say that you had no idea that the equipment was crappy and maintainance was not up to par until the day you left the company?....I am sure that you and many others knew and just were looking the other way until something better came along.I know this was the case as I have heard it said to me.

If it wasn't for the many people that spoke up and let it be known the way Air-Trek operated then they would still be in business today. Yes I guess you can say it is all behind you and move on but that would only leave the door open for some one else to get hurt or another crew being put in bad situations.

I wouldnt go patting yourself on the back now...when had you said or done something earlier you may have saved lives.Putting this company out of business after you left there was your only concern and that is obvious....you could care less that you could have saved lives.That is obvious because you got into those very same planes that were involved in these accidents and incidents.Heck you 'may' have even been at fault in a few.

Bottom line is,after people get killed,which brings attention to possible problems,is when things usually change.Not because of a bunch of ex discruntled employees,start calling their ex-employers names.

Its hard for me to understand how some one would not speak up if there was a risk of injury or death. I guess we really don't know what some of you pilots are thinking.

Its hard for me to believe that no one says anything until after they leave there and that some ex-employees still know many of the pilots that work there and yet the company still is in business.

 

[100-1/2]

Seems like I got a load of backlash BS from the lot of you in another thread awhile back where I pointed out the PIC had a shared responsibility in making their certificate holding company accountable for maintenance and flight/duty.

I don't think the FAA will have time to go after those that flew AT and moved on. Those that are there and contributing to the negligence likely need to polish their resumes' highlighting their management capabilities and forget about ever flying professionally again.

At first read, I thought previous employers of mine could easily be cited for some of these infractions similarly, you know them too. But as I read, I was imbarrassed to believe someone could operate like this over a number of years and accidents.

It is funny the FAA is pointing fingers and lobbing an anslaught of AT as three of their fingers are pointing right back at the FAA. When Well considered and fairly, look no further than SWA's recent newsworthy CHDO and you will bet there is a POI, Manager and a couple of AMI's sharing responsibility for failing to maintain surveillence on the operator to uncover these infractions after the first crash. There needs to be a few feds on the street as well when this is all over, and despite the desperate need for good qualified Feds. We may just as well do without these losers that contributed to the loss of good human lives.

100-1/2

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Yeah that's a good point. Who are the POI and POM, and why doesn't the FAA letter mention them?

 

[SENECAII]

Exactly right......there are many people that were responsible for letting this go on as long as it supposedly did.

 

[jergar999]

One of the things I found interesting was that a major complaint was allowing maintenance discrepancies to be reported orally. Write it up, and make sure it's cleared before you accept an aircraft.

 

[AirTrek]

NTSB Law Judge Reverses Emergency Order of Revocation Issued Against the Air Carrier Certificate Held by Air Trek, Inc., a 30-year Air Ambulance Operator

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 20 - The Honorable William A. Pope, II, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Administrative Law Judge, issued an oral initial decision on October 17, 2008, reversing an Emergency Order issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 10, 2008, which revoked the Air Carrier Certificate held by Air Trek, Inc., an air ambulance operator based in Punta Gorda, FL. The nine (9) day hearing took place during three separate sessions over a five week period.

The case initially began five months ago on May 23, 2008, when the FAA first issued an Emergency Order indefinitely suspending Air Trek’s Air Carrier Certificate pending compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Prior to the suspension, Air Trek had been in operation for 30 years with no violation history. On May 24, 2008, Air Trek retained counsel and immediately appealed the suspension order.

On June 5, 2008, less than two weeks following the emergency suspension, and while litigation was in progress, FAA attorney Brendan Kelly, Esq., ordered a surprise inspection of Air Trek’s Punta Gorda facility for the stated purpose of obtaining additional evidence to “push the case from suspension to revocation.” When two FAA inspectors arrived at Air Trek’s facility unannounced, the company had already ceased operation and surrendered its Air Carrier Certificate pursuant to the emergency order. Accordingly, the FAA inspectors stated that they were going to inspect aircraft and records pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 91 only.

Since the company had already retained counsel concerning the suspension, Air Trek’s Director of Operations, Dana Carr, suggested that the FAA inspectors wait at a nearby airport diner while he contacted his attorney. However, before Air Trek’s attorney could coordinate an inspection, the inspectors reported to Mr. Carr that they had been instructed by the Special Emphasis Inspection Team (SEIT) leader to abort the inspection and return to home base. Although the inspection never took place, the FAA withdrew its suspension order and issued an Emergency Order of Revocation instead.

The law judge found that since Mr. Carr had initially suggested that the FAA inspectors leave Air Trek’s facility while he attempted to contact his attorney, a technical violation of 14 C.F.R. §119.59 had occurred (i.e., refusal to allow an inspection). However, he stated that any apparent violation was “de minimus” (i.e., "of minimum importance" or "trifling”) and did not warrant revocation.

By the fourth day of the hearing, the FAA had withdrawn 6 of the 10 Counts in the revocation order and dismissed 9 of the 14 regulatory violations. At the termination of the hearing, the remaining two findings of violation by the law judge related only to flight operations that occurred at Air Trek’s Winchester, Virginia (OKV) base of operations, which had been closed since January 2007 (more than 1 ½ years prior to issuance of the revocation order).

Specifically, the law judge found that the Winchester pilots did not follow the company’s Operations Specifications and General Operations Manual concerning the reporting of mechanical irregularities and calculation of weight and balance. As a result, the law judge found a violation of 14 C.F.R. §119.5(g) (i.e., violation of operations specifications), and a residual violation of §91.13(a). These findings were limited to the Winchester pilot operations only.


Throughout his decision, the law judge credited testimony from Wayne Carr, Air Trek’s President and Chief Pilot, finding that regulatory violations by the Winchester pilots were not “directed, caused, or permitted” by management. As a result, the FAA did not present evidence to support a finding that Air Trek “lacks the qualifications necessary to hold an Air Carrier Certificate”, as alleged in the revocation order. By contrast, the law judge found the testimony of former Winchester pilots, Garrett Lunde and John Roberts, to be unreliable. He found that both pilots were obviously biased against Air Trek’s management, and therefore, were not credible.

The current practices of Air Trek pilots to report mechanical irregularities either verbally or by placing a hand written note in a vice located in the maintenance shop, as well as the use of an Excel computer program to calculate weight and balance, were found to be in accordance with the company’s Operations Specifications, General Operations Manual, and the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Most importantly, the law judge held that the FAA failed to present any evidence that aircraft were actually operated in an unairworthy condition, as alleged throughout the revocation order. Nevertheless, he ordered that Air Trek’s certificate be suspended until the company provides adequate safeguards to ensure ongoing future compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Air Trek was represented by Gregory S. Winton, Esq. of Aviation Law Experts, LLC, along with co-counsel, Darol H.M. Carr, Esq. of the Farr Law Firm located in Punta Gorda, FL. Mr. Winton, a former FAA trial attorney, has been practicing aviation law for the past 19 years.

According to Mr. Winton, “this case is just another example of an inadequate FAA investigation leading to protracted litigation without substantial justification. In fact, during the hearing the law judge described certain allegations as ‘absurd’.” As a result, Air Trek will apply for reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

MEDIA CONTACT:Gregory S. Winton, Esq.Toll Free: 1-877- 424-7529 Tel: 301-294-8550 [email protected]