|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : apc|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Make Model Name||Iroquois 204 (Huey)|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||other other : other|
pilot : atp
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 35|
flight time total : 7300
flight time type : 2200
|Function||oversight : supervisor|
|Qualification||other other : other|
|Anomaly||non adherence : far|
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Consequence||faa : investigated|
faa : assigned or threatened penalties
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
Since the implementation of the change in the definition of public aircraft in apr/95 a lot of questions have arisen over what is a legal flight and what isn't. Today I was ordered by my supervisor to make a flight which I'm fairly certain was not legal. The flight involved picking up 5 engineers and construction types at the napa airport and flying to mendocino county so they could look at fire stations. Our department has taken the stand that if the aircraft carries only our personnel then the flight is legal. This is not the impression I get from reading AC 00-1.1 government aircraft operations. When I pointed out to the administration that this could be in violation, I was told that the decision to make the flight had been made and that I would do the flight. The implication was made that adverse action might be taken against me if I did not comply. The department has taken the stand that the FAA will not dictate how we use our helicopters. This puts the pilot in the middle of a power struggle and we will be the ones the FAA comes looking for. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had since reviewed this matter with the local FAA office to obtain clarification of the interpretation of the new public law and the legal status of this flight. Even though the FAA did say it was contrary to the provisions of the new public law, there has been no action against him. However, there has been threatened action against his government agency. His supervisor does not want to recognize or follow those rules but have not made further threats to him if a flight of this type is not taken by the reporter.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PLT OF A HUEY UHI GOV HELI CARRIED PAX CONTRARY TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PUBLIC ACFT OPS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 103- 411 AND GUIDANCE OF FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR, #00-1 PT 1, FOR THE OPS OF PUBLIC ACFT.
Narrative: SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ACFT IN APR/95 A LOT OF QUESTIONS HAVE ARISEN OVER WHAT IS A LEGAL FLT AND WHAT ISN'T. TODAY I WAS ORDERED BY MY SUPVR TO MAKE A FLT WHICH I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN WAS NOT LEGAL. THE FLT INVOLVED PICKING UP 5 ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTION TYPES AT THE NAPA ARPT AND FLYING TO MENDOCINO COUNTY SO THEY COULD LOOK AT FIRE STATIONS. OUR DEPT HAS TAKEN THE STAND THAT IF THE ACFT CARRIES ONLY OUR PERSONNEL THEN THE FLT IS LEGAL. THIS IS NOT THE IMPRESSION I GET FROM READING AC 00-1.1 GOV ACFT OPS. WHEN I POINTED OUT TO THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS COULD BE IN VIOLATION, I WAS TOLD THAT THE DECISION TO MAKE THE FLT HAD BEEN MADE AND THAT I WOULD DO THE FLT. THE IMPLICATION WAS MADE THAT ADVERSE ACTION MIGHT BE TAKEN AGAINST ME IF I DID NOT COMPLY. THE DEPT HAS TAKEN THE STAND THAT THE FAA WILL NOT DICTATE HOW WE USE OUR HELIS. THIS PUTS THE PLT IN THE MIDDLE OF A PWR STRUGGLE AND WE WILL BE THE ONES THE FAA COMES LOOKING FOR. TALK ABOUT BEING BTWN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD SINCE REVIEWED THIS MATTER WITH THE LCL FAA OFFICE TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION OF THE INTERP OF THE NEW PUBLIC LAW AND THE LEGAL STATUS OF THIS FLT. EVEN THOUGH THE FAA DID SAY IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW PUBLIC LAW, THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION AGAINST HIM. HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN THREATENED ACTION AGAINST HIS GOV AGENCY. HIS SUPERVISOR DOES NOT WANT TO RECOGNIZE OR FOLLOW THOSE RULES BUT HAVE NOT MADE FURTHER THREATS TO HIM IF A FLT OF THIS TYPE IS NOT TAKEN BY THE RPTR.
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.