Narrative:

This report is to bring to the attention of some 3RD party; safety and operation concerns that I have experienced as a first officer flying for this 135 operator. My concerns are too numerous to cite all. The first is one of operation control. The owner of the part 135 charter aircraft that I am flying is directly involved with acquiring trips; contacting the operator to have those trips flown as well as contacting the capts that I fly with directly; to pressure them to fly those trips. This had led to a breakdown in safety; in my opinion; as the capts are finding themselves under pressure to fly the plane while it is broken. The current mechanical issue that the plane is still being flown under; is the pilot's side attitude indicator. I was performing a departure into a thin marine layer; IMC; when both the captain and I both noticed that his ai was indicating at least 30 degrees nose high and between 45 and 60 degrees bank. My side indicated 30 degrees bank and approximately 8 degrees nose up. We continued on the trip and found that his side stabilized in cruise. Despite my protestations; the captain postponed reporting the problem until our return from our day trip had been concluded. We discovered that the former captain on the aircraft had grounded it for the same problem. My captain has still chosen not to ground the plane to have a mechanic look at it. On the same trip this captain admitted to passing a 135.299 check ride despite not performing the required pre-departure passenger brief. I noticed that on previous trips he did not perform one and did not direct me to do so either; despite my bringing up the topic. He regularly does not perform a pre-departure brief for us; the flight crew; despite my requests. He does not ask for appropriate checklists to be performed. The last forgotten one was a before takeoff checklist that left us airborne without igniters; stall warnings; lights or transponder being turned on; of which most are required. I performed these items after we were wheels up; despite his balking at my actions. On our first trip in the aircraft together; I departed the plane after shutdown; and went inside to use the lavatory. Upon my return; I found that he had accidentally selected the start position on the 3 position switch that includes generator/off/start. By the captain's own admission; this ran the starter motor for between 5 and 10 mins causing smoke to pour out of the right nacelle. A slowly departing passenger noticed the smoke from inside the aircraft and brought it to the attention of this captain. I was not there to see the smoke. I was there however; to witness the captain loading the passenger up and requesting that a fire truck stand by in case of fire; for our departure. He now claims that he was doing this to meet our operations specification requirement that states that a fire truck must stand by if passenger are to remain on board while refueling is being performed. I indicated to him that if he had a concern of fire; then I felt that the engine and the starter; specifically; should be inspected by a mechanic before we proceed. He chose to fly the plane home; stopping for fuel and requesting a fire truck stand by at 2 other locations. The passenger were not on board during fueling at those subsequent stops. Upon our return to our current base a mechanic looked at the starter and indicated to us that it was not airworthy. He said that the damage was extensive to cables and the starter; and that the starter was probably not in good enough condition to even be considered for overhaul. He removed and replaced it; despite the protestations of the aircraft owner who was also contacted. In terms of flying; the captain has less than 30 hours in type; but has over 10000 hours total time. He has been flying as a falcon first officer; claiming a logged 700 hours in 4 yrs in that airplane. He has been consistently flaring too high; which has resulted in touching down at vref -20 KIAS with a very nose high attitude on at least 1 occasion and vref -15 KIAS on a number of occasions. I have brought my concerns up with our chief pilot and he has dismissed them as being 'a personality problem' between this captain and myself. I have also requested; of the chief pilot; that this particular captain fly more extensively with another captain who has more experience in this type of aircraft. I feel as though this captain is likeable and knowledgeable; but is making unsafe choices and is putting myself and passenger at risk. I do not know who to voice my concerns to; other than this venue. I have flown 3 trips in august with this captain.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LR35 FIRST OFFICER FLYING UNDER PART 135 LAMENTS CONDITION OF ACFT AND ATTITUDE OF CAPTAIN HE IS PAIRED WITH.

Narrative: THIS RPT IS TO BRING TO THE ATTN OF SOME 3RD PARTY; SAFETY AND OP CONCERNS THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED AS A FO FLYING FOR THIS 135 OPERATOR. MY CONCERNS ARE TOO NUMEROUS TO CITE ALL. THE FIRST IS ONE OF OP CTL. THE OWNER OF THE PART 135 CHARTER ACFT THAT I AM FLYING IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH ACQUIRING TRIPS; CONTACTING THE OPERATOR TO HAVE THOSE TRIPS FLOWN AS WELL AS CONTACTING THE CAPTS THAT I FLY WITH DIRECTLY; TO PRESSURE THEM TO FLY THOSE TRIPS. THIS HAD LED TO A BREAKDOWN IN SAFETY; IN MY OPINION; AS THE CAPTS ARE FINDING THEMSELVES UNDER PRESSURE TO FLY THE PLANE WHILE IT IS BROKEN. THE CURRENT MECHANICAL ISSUE THAT THE PLANE IS STILL BEING FLOWN UNDER; IS THE PLT'S SIDE ATTITUDE INDICATOR. I WAS PERFORMING A DEP INTO A THIN MARINE LAYER; IMC; WHEN BOTH THE CAPT AND I BOTH NOTICED THAT HIS AI WAS INDICATING AT LEAST 30 DEGS NOSE HIGH AND BTWN 45 AND 60 DEGS BANK. MY SIDE INDICATED 30 DEGS BANK AND APPROX 8 DEGS NOSE UP. WE CONTINUED ON THE TRIP AND FOUND THAT HIS SIDE STABILIZED IN CRUISE. DESPITE MY PROTESTATIONS; THE CAPT POSTPONED RPTING THE PROB UNTIL OUR RETURN FROM OUR DAY TRIP HAD BEEN CONCLUDED. WE DISCOVERED THAT THE FORMER CAPT ON THE ACFT HAD GNDED IT FOR THE SAME PROB. MY CAPT HAS STILL CHOSEN NOT TO GND THE PLANE TO HAVE A MECH LOOK AT IT. ON THE SAME TRIP THIS CAPT ADMITTED TO PASSING A 135.299 CHK RIDE DESPITE NOT PERFORMING THE REQUIRED PRE-DEP PAX BRIEF. I NOTICED THAT ON PREVIOUS TRIPS HE DID NOT PERFORM ONE AND DID NOT DIRECT ME TO DO SO EITHER; DESPITE MY BRINGING UP THE TOPIC. HE REGULARLY DOES NOT PERFORM A PRE-DEP BRIEF FOR US; THE FLT CREW; DESPITE MY REQUESTS. HE DOES NOT ASK FOR APPROPRIATE CHKLISTS TO BE PERFORMED. THE LAST FORGOTTEN ONE WAS A BEFORE TKOF CHKLIST THAT LEFT US AIRBORNE WITHOUT IGNITERS; STALL WARNINGS; LIGHTS OR XPONDER BEING TURNED ON; OF WHICH MOST ARE REQUIRED. I PERFORMED THESE ITEMS AFTER WE WERE WHEELS UP; DESPITE HIS BALKING AT MY ACTIONS. ON OUR FIRST TRIP IN THE ACFT TOGETHER; I DEPARTED THE PLANE AFTER SHUTDOWN; AND WENT INSIDE TO USE THE LAVATORY. UPON MY RETURN; I FOUND THAT HE HAD ACCIDENTALLY SELECTED THE START POS ON THE 3 POS SWITCH THAT INCLUDES GENERATOR/OFF/START. BY THE CAPT'S OWN ADMISSION; THIS RAN THE STARTER MOTOR FOR BTWN 5 AND 10 MINS CAUSING SMOKE TO POUR OUT OF THE R NACELLE. A SLOWLY DEPARTING PAX NOTICED THE SMOKE FROM INSIDE THE ACFT AND BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTN OF THIS CAPT. I WAS NOT THERE TO SEE THE SMOKE. I WAS THERE HOWEVER; TO WITNESS THE CAPT LOADING THE PAX UP AND REQUESTING THAT A FIRE TRUCK STAND BY IN CASE OF FIRE; FOR OUR DEP. HE NOW CLAIMS THAT HE WAS DOING THIS TO MEET OUR OPS SPEC REQUIREMENT THAT STATES THAT A FIRE TRUCK MUST STAND BY IF PAX ARE TO REMAIN ON BOARD WHILE REFUELING IS BEING PERFORMED. I INDICATED TO HIM THAT IF HE HAD A CONCERN OF FIRE; THEN I FELT THAT THE ENG AND THE STARTER; SPECIFICALLY; SHOULD BE INSPECTED BY A MECH BEFORE WE PROCEED. HE CHOSE TO FLY THE PLANE HOME; STOPPING FOR FUEL AND REQUESTING A FIRE TRUCK STAND BY AT 2 OTHER LOCATIONS. THE PAX WERE NOT ON BOARD DURING FUELING AT THOSE SUBSEQUENT STOPS. UPON OUR RETURN TO OUR CURRENT BASE A MECH LOOKED AT THE STARTER AND INDICATED TO US THAT IT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY. HE SAID THAT THE DAMAGE WAS EXTENSIVE TO CABLES AND THE STARTER; AND THAT THE STARTER WAS PROBABLY NOT IN GOOD ENOUGH CONDITION TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR OVERHAUL. HE REMOVED AND REPLACED IT; DESPITE THE PROTESTATIONS OF THE ACFT OWNER WHO WAS ALSO CONTACTED. IN TERMS OF FLYING; THE CAPT HAS LESS THAN 30 HRS IN TYPE; BUT HAS OVER 10000 HRS TOTAL TIME. HE HAS BEEN FLYING AS A FALCON FO; CLAIMING A LOGGED 700 HRS IN 4 YRS IN THAT AIRPLANE. HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FLARING TOO HIGH; WHICH HAS RESULTED IN TOUCHING DOWN AT VREF -20 KIAS WITH A VERY NOSE HIGH ATTITUDE ON AT LEAST 1 OCCASION AND VREF -15 KIAS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. I HAVE BROUGHT MY CONCERNS UP WITH OUR CHIEF PLT AND HE HAS DISMISSED THEM AS BEING 'A PERSONALITY PROB' BTWN THIS CAPT AND MYSELF. I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED; OF THE CHIEF PLT; THAT THIS PARTICULAR CAPT FLY MORE EXTENSIVELY WITH ANOTHER CAPT WHO HAS MORE EXPERIENCE IN THIS TYPE OF ACFT. I FEEL AS THOUGH THIS CAPT IS LIKEABLE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE; BUT IS MAKING UNSAFE CHOICES AND IS PUTTING MYSELF AND PAX AT RISK. I DO NOT KNOW WHO TO VOICE MY CONCERNS TO; OTHER THAN THIS VENUE. I HAVE FLOWN 3 TRIPS IN AUGUST WITH THIS CAPT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.