Eric R. Byer
Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs
800-808-6282
ebyer@nata.aero
IG REPORT FAILS TO GIVE COMPLETE PICTURE OF INDUSTRY
Alexandria, VA, July 17, 2009 — The Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General (IG) recently issued a report on the on-demand air charter industry that, while containing much factual information, failed to present an accurate picture of the Part 135 regulatory environment.
The IG report cites numerous examples of differences between Part 135 and Part 121 regulations but does not offer adequate explanation for the reason for the variances.
“The IG largely conducts an apples and oranges comparison,” National Air Transportation Association (NATA) President James K. Coyne said. “Part 121 is very homogenous with regard to the types of aircraft and operations. Part 135 contains every possible mission profile and includes single-engine pistons up to large cabin jets. Of course the requirements are going to be different.”
As an example, the report simply states that Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems and In-flight Weather are required for all Part 121 aircraft but “not required for all operators” in Part 135. There is no explanation of which aircraft are covered, nor are the number of aircraft impacted expressed as percentage of the fleet.
“The IG offers no information or explanation as to why it might not be feasible or necessary to install such equipment in, for example, a single-engine plane flying only in Visual Flight Rules weather conditions,” said Coyne.
In one section of the report, apparently in an effort to bolster an argument for adding a dispatcher requirement to Part 135, the IG claims to know better than the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) by suggesting that if a dispatcher was present the 2001 crash of a Gulfstream III aircraft may have been averted.
“NATA is quite alarmed that the DOT IG, performing perfunctory review of accidents, somehow felt more knowledgeable and qualified than the NTSB,” said Coyne. “The primary cause of that accident, as determined following an extensive NTSB investigation, was operation of the aircraft below approach minimums, in violation of the regulations. Pressure to land at Aspen was listed as one of the six contributing factors. Stating that the presence of a dispatcher would have changed the outcome of this flight is an unacceptable leap for the IG to make.”
In that accident, the NTSB recommended implementation of Crew Resource Management Training, which was also proposed by the 135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) and has since been formally proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The NTSB made no recommendations related to aircraft dispatching functions.
It is, however, gratifying to see that the IG strongly emphasized the fact that industry has made numerous safety recommendations, in the ARC, that have largely been collecting dust on a shelf at the FAA,” concluded Coyne. “It is our hope that this new report will spur the FAA to act on the ARC recommendations.”
# # #
NATA, the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress and federal agencies.