Narrative:

There is a very big problem in this sfar 71 in that we are giving authority/authorized to men who are in the FAA. As a pilot we are not able to defend ourselves, they send a letter of investigation and unless we answer them in 10 days we automatically are guilty and our licenses are suspended or threatened. This is costing me money to hire a lawyer just to defend myself. I feel this is harassment and misuse of power, and nothing I can do!! On feb/wed/96 at around XA30 I was accused of flying below the sfar 71 and aerobatics on a tour flight. The men that said they saw this could not have possibly made a sound judgement because 1) they were at least a minimum of 2 mi away from where they said they were. 2) they were in a moving vehicle. 3) they had no reference points, no instruments. 4) no pictures or videos. 5) they did not even know who this helicopter belonged to, they admitted guessing because it looked like our company helicopters. I have yrs and thousands of hours of this experience in tours, I am safe and very conscientious of people's comfort, on said flight and all of my flts. I never fly below 1500 ft!! On this flight I was 1650 ft at the location mentioned. Please help me fight this sfar 71. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated he was flying a hughes 269C which is a turbine powered helicopter. He stated it is not equipped with any kind of float or inflatable float. The reporter stated that he has been flying for 2 yrs 5-10 flts per day. He stated he does not fly below the legal altitudes. He stated where he was accused of flying below 1500 ft, which was illegal then, is now legal to 500 ft. He assured me he was at 1650 ft just as he had reported in his report. He said he was flying his helicopter in that area at the time. He stated he had an engine failure recently and made a successful forced landing, in that the passenger were not injured, but the helicopter was destroyed in the landing. The fuel line broke and the FAA suggested he should have picked up the fuel line discrepancy prior to takeoff. The FAA lawyer says no and the case was dropped telling the reporter he did a good job flying and saving the passenger. The company the reporter works for is not under the jurisdiction of the hawaii FSDO but was created by the torrance, california, FSDO. This situation is being changed. The reporter stated the violation for low flying is still pending. Therefore, his pilot's license is 'red tagged' and the FSDO will not update his pilot's license with his new address or his flight instructor revalidation. The reporter has 3 children to support and he has to hire his own lawyer to represent him. So far he is still legal to fly as he has not surrendered his license.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE RPTR, A HELI TOUR PLT, IS ACCUSED OF FLYING BELOW THE REQUIRED 1500 FT.

Narrative: THERE IS A VERY BIG PROB IN THIS SFAR 71 IN THAT WE ARE GIVING AUTH TO MEN WHO ARE IN THE FAA. AS A PLT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES, THEY SEND A LETTER OF INVESTIGATION AND UNLESS WE ANSWER THEM IN 10 DAYS WE AUTOMATICALLY ARE GUILTY AND OUR LICENSES ARE SUSPENDED OR THREATENED. THIS IS COSTING ME MONEY TO HIRE A LAWYER JUST TO DEFEND MYSELF. I FEEL THIS IS HARASSMENT AND MISUSE OF PWR, AND NOTHING I CAN DO!! ON FEB/WED/96 AT AROUND XA30 I WAS ACCUSED OF FLYING BELOW THE SFAR 71 AND AEROBATICS ON A TOUR FLT. THE MEN THAT SAID THEY SAW THIS COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY MADE A SOUND JUDGEMENT BECAUSE 1) THEY WERE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF 2 MI AWAY FROM WHERE THEY SAID THEY WERE. 2) THEY WERE IN A MOVING VEHICLE. 3) THEY HAD NO REF POINTS, NO INSTS. 4) NO PICTURES OR VIDEOS. 5) THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHO THIS HELI BELONGED TO, THEY ADMITTED GUESSING BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE OUR COMPANY HELIS. I HAVE YRS AND THOUSANDS OF HRS OF THIS EXPERIENCE IN TOURS, I AM SAFE AND VERY CONSCIENTIOUS OF PEOPLE'S COMFORT, ON SAID FLT AND ALL OF MY FLTS. I NEVER FLY BELOW 1500 FT!! ON THIS FLT I WAS 1650 FT AT THE LOCATION MENTIONED. PLEASE HELP ME FIGHT THIS SFAR 71. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED HE WAS FLYING A HUGHES 269C WHICH IS A TURBINE POWERED HELI. HE STATED IT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH ANY KIND OF FLOAT OR INFLATABLE FLOAT. THE RPTR STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN FLYING FOR 2 YRS 5-10 FLTS PER DAY. HE STATED HE DOES NOT FLY BELOW THE LEGAL ALTS. HE STATED WHERE HE WAS ACCUSED OF FLYING BELOW 1500 FT, WHICH WAS ILLEGAL THEN, IS NOW LEGAL TO 500 FT. HE ASSURED ME HE WAS AT 1650 FT JUST AS HE HAD RPTED IN HIS RPT. HE SAID HE WAS FLYING HIS HELI IN THAT AREA AT THE TIME. HE STATED HE HAD AN ENG FAILURE RECENTLY AND MADE A SUCCESSFUL FORCED LNDG, IN THAT THE PAX WERE NOT INJURED, BUT THE HELI WAS DESTROYED IN THE LNDG. THE FUEL LINE BROKE AND THE FAA SUGGESTED HE SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP THE FUEL LINE DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO TKOF. THE FAA LAWYER SAYS NO AND THE CASE WAS DROPPED TELLING THE RPTR HE DID A GOOD JOB FLYING AND SAVING THE PAX. THE COMPANY THE RPTR WORKS FOR IS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE HAWAII FSDO BUT WAS CREATED BY THE TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, FSDO. THIS SIT IS BEING CHANGED. THE RPTR STATED THE VIOLATION FOR LOW FLYING IS STILL PENDING. THEREFORE, HIS PLT'S LICENSE IS 'RED TAGGED' AND THE FSDO WILL NOT UPDATE HIS PLT'S LICENSE WITH HIS NEW ADDRESS OR HIS FLT INSTRUCTOR REVALIDATION. THE RPTR HAS 3 CHILDREN TO SUPPORT AND HE HAS TO HIRE HIS OWN LAWYER TO REPRESENT HIM. SO FAR HE IS STILL LEGAL TO FLY AS HE HAS NOT SURRENDERED HIS LICENSE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.