Narrative:

As a pilot for a part 135 air taxi operator whose principal investors or their business associates or relatives hold private pilot licenses or simply wish to fly, I have been pressured to surrender the controls and permit these unqualified persons to operate the aircraft. The unqualified pilot was allowed to fly the aircraft, sometimes with additional passenger, on what was, in reality, a commuter flight but was written up as a part 91 operation. One cannot safely act as an instructor for someone who does not accept the role of student. When the 'instructor' is a professional commuter captain who does not generally act as CFI, and is essentially told by his part 135 employer to take the 'student' up and let him play or face dismissal, there is great pressure to participate in inherently unsafe operations. One solution may be to require all air taxi operators to disclose whether any principals hold airman certificates and to prohibit passenger in any training operation and to scrutinize whether commuter flts are being passed off as part 91 operations. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter worked as a helicopter pilot for a company which, according to reporter, coerced its pilots to falsify records (logbooks, maintenance discrepancies, etc.), and to allow non-qualified pilots fly the aircraft with passenger on board. That the company used their helicopters as a hook to get wealthy investors involved, who either wanted to fly themselves or had children who did. During 1 of the occasions when he was forced to allow a non-qualified pilot to take the controls, and during start had failed to untie the blades, the aircraft was damaged to the extent of an accident. The pilot was fired. He then went to the local FAA FSDO to report the numerous infractions being committed by the company and the FAA subpoenaed the company records which ostensibly proved the reporter's charges. Evidently the company owner was able to wield some influence with the FAA regional office to ignore the investigation. Reporter has an attorney and, if no action is forthcoming, plans to expose the company and FAA to the media. Good luck.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT COMPANY MGMNT VENDETTA.

Narrative: AS A PLT FOR A PART 135 AIR TAXI OPERATOR WHOSE PRINCIPAL INVESTORS OR THEIR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES OR RELATIVES HOLD PVT PLT LICENSES OR SIMPLY WISH TO FLY, I HAVE BEEN PRESSURED TO SURRENDER THE CTLS AND PERMIT THESE UNQUALIFIED PERSONS TO OPERATE THE ACFT. THE UNQUALIFIED PLT WAS ALLOWED TO FLY THE ACFT, SOMETIMES WITH ADDITIONAL PAX, ON WHAT WAS, IN REALITY, A COMMUTER FLT BUT WAS WRITTEN UP AS A PART 91 OP. ONE CANNOT SAFELY ACT AS AN INSTRUCTOR FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ROLE OF STUDENT. WHEN THE 'INSTRUCTOR' IS A PROFESSIONAL COMMUTER CAPT WHO DOES NOT GENERALLY ACT AS CFI, AND IS ESSENTIALLY TOLD BY HIS PART 135 EMPLOYER TO TAKE THE 'STUDENT' UP AND LET HIM PLAY OR FACE DISMISSAL, THERE IS GREAT PRESSURE TO PARTICIPATE IN INHERENTLY UNSAFE OPS. ONE SOLUTION MAY BE TO REQUIRE ALL AIR TAXI OPERATORS TO DISCLOSE WHETHER ANY PRINCIPALS HOLD AIRMAN CERTIFICATES AND TO PROHIBIT PAX IN ANY TRAINING OP AND TO SCRUTINIZE WHETHER COMMUTER FLTS ARE BEING PASSED OFF AS PART 91 OPS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WORKED AS A HELI PLT FOR A COMPANY WHICH, ACCORDING TO RPTR, COERCED ITS PLTS TO FALSIFY RECORDS (LOGBOOKS, MAINT DISCREPANCIES, ETC.), AND TO ALLOW NON-QUALIFIED PLTS FLY THE ACFT WITH PAX ON BOARD. THAT THE COMPANY USED THEIR HELIS AS A HOOK TO GET WEALTHY INVESTORS INVOLVED, WHO EITHER WANTED TO FLY THEMSELVES OR HAD CHILDREN WHO DID. DURING 1 OF THE OCCASIONS WHEN HE WAS FORCED TO ALLOW A NON-QUALIFIED PLT TO TAKE THE CTLS, AND DURING START HAD FAILED TO UNTIE THE BLADES, THE ACFT WAS DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT OF AN ACCIDENT. THE PLT WAS FIRED. HE THEN WENT TO THE LCL FAA FSDO TO RPT THE NUMEROUS INFRACTIONS BEING COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY AND THE FAA SUBPOENAED THE COMPANY RECORDS WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROVED THE RPTR'S CHARGES. EVIDENTLY THE COMPANY OWNER WAS ABLE TO WIELD SOME INFLUENCE WITH THE FAA REGIONAL OFFICE TO IGNORE THE INVESTIGATION. RPTR HAS AN ATTORNEY AND, IF NO ACTION IS FORTHCOMING, PLANS TO EXPOSE THE COMPANY AND FAA TO THE MEDIA. GOOD LUCK.

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.