The director of maintenance for a helicopter agriculture operator complains about FAA proposed civil...

Narrative:

Received on jan/xa/99 a letter from the FAA, stating that we were being fined for violations of certain FARS. These fines are described below, as well as our reasons for disputing some of them. We would also like to state that some of the violations did in fact occur, and we are not trying to deny that they did. We understand we are beyond the time frame for filing this letter, but would like to have it put on the records anyway. We feel that there are some valid points to be made concerning the FAA and their approach to safety issues. I am enclosing a copy of the letter that we received for your review, and we would appreciate your help with this matter. A copy of this letter is being sent to the FAA counsel. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the main reason for his company's complaint is that the FAA's proposed penalties did not seem to consider the money and effort made by his company to comply with the items found deficient, ie, replacing complete tail boom, installing new swash plates, inspections made by the pilots on a daily basis and the specialized operations in non populated areas engaged in spraying forests. The logistics of making timely inspections are difficult due to the remote sites of the helicopters. He was advised that he could petition the FAA for relief from some provisions of the FAA that he believed that the inspections could be done at aircraft down times when it could be shown that the same level of safety, of which the regulation provides, would be met. In addition, approved letters from the FAA to increase inspection intervals could be possible based on the time in service of the equipment and their maintenance history. Finally, he should provide such type of information to any informal FAA hearing and to any formal hearing that may arise before the proposed sanctions become final.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT FOR A HELI AGRICULTURE OPERATOR COMPLAINS ABOUT FAA PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTIES FOR ACFT OPS WHEN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND SOME REQUIRED INSTS OR EQUIP WERE NOT INSTALLED.

Narrative: RECEIVED ON JAN/XA/99 A LETTER FROM THE FAA, STATING THAT WE WERE BEING FINED FOR VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN FARS. THESE FINES ARE DESCRIBED BELOW, AS WELL AS OUR REASONS FOR DISPUTING SOME OF THEM. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS DID IN FACT OCCUR, AND WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DENY THAT THEY DID. WE UNDERSTAND WE ARE BEYOND THE TIME FRAME FOR FILING THIS LETTER, BUT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT PUT ON THE RECORDS ANYWAY. WE FEEL THAT THERE ARE SOME VALID POINTS TO BE MADE CONCERNING THE FAA AND THEIR APCH TO SAFETY ISSUES. I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED FOR YOUR REVIEW, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR HELP WITH THIS MATTER. A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS BEING SENT TO THE FAA COUNSEL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR HIS COMPANY'S COMPLAINT IS THAT THE FAA'S PROPOSED PENALTIES DID NOT SEEM TO CONSIDER THE MONEY AND EFFORT MADE BY HIS COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH THE ITEMS FOUND DEFICIENT, IE, REPLACING COMPLETE TAIL BOOM, INSTALLING NEW SWASH PLATES, INSPECTIONS MADE BY THE PLTS ON A DAILY BASIS AND THE SPECIALIZED OPS IN NON POPULATED AREAS ENGAGED IN SPRAYING FORESTS. THE LOGISTICS OF MAKING TIMELY INSPECTIONS ARE DIFFICULT DUE TO THE REMOTE SITES OF THE HELIS. HE WAS ADVISED THAT HE COULD PETITION THE FAA FOR RELIEF FROM SOME PROVISIONS OF THE FAA THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE INSPECTIONS COULD BE DONE AT ACFT DOWN TIMES WHEN IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF SAFETY, OF WHICH THE REG PROVIDES, WOULD BE MET. IN ADDITION, APPROVED LETTERS FROM THE FAA TO INCREASE INSPECTION INTERVALS COULD BE POSSIBLE BASED ON THE TIME IN SVC OF THE EQUIP AND THEIR MAINT HISTORY. FINALLY, HE SHOULD PROVIDE SUCH TYPE OF INFO TO ANY INFORMAL FAA HEARING AND TO ANY FORMAL HEARING THAT MAY ARISE BEFORE THE PROPOSED SANCTIONS BECOME FINAL.

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.

Attributes
ACN	424457
Time
Date	199812
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Jet/Long Ranger
Flight Phase	other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	other personnel other
Qualification	other other : other
ASRS Report	424457
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	observation : air carrier inspector
Qualification	other other : other
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : assigned or threatened penalties
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other

The director of maintenance for a helicopter agriculture operator complains about FAA proposed civil penalties for aircraft operations when airworthiness directives had not been complied with and some required instruments or equipment were not installed.