The National Air Transportation Association is calling on members to contact their Congressional representatives to lodge objections to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 135 certificate actions citing the lack of uniform interpretations of rules. Just as the FAA did in the mid 1980s, it is grounding operations despite the fact they meet their FAA-approved operating rules.
“One of the biggest burdens confronting the general aviation industry is the varying interpretation of FAA regulations,” said the organization in an alert to members. “Over the last 24 months, the FAA has issued or threatened to issue numerous emergency suspensions or revocation orders to Part 135 carriers due to inconsistent regulations within the agency. Some emergency orders have resulted in the loss of certificates for the operators involved. Further, Part 135 carriers have received the ultimate penalty for operational infractions, while their Part 121 counterparts are merely fined and permitted to operate although they were found to have knowingly operated in violation of safety requirements.”
The actions date from the AMI Jet Charter accident at Teterboro in 2005 in which operational control was at issue and led to the development of A0008 clarifying operational control issues. Related Story Since then, NATA has worked closely with the FAA to review policies for how operational control is exercised by on-demand air carriers operating in accordance with Part 135. Despite that, however, the FAA recently suspended the certificate of Air Trek, despite the fact that it was adhering to FAA-approved methods and procedures.
NATA believes that the emergency suspension lacked fairness in the face of the agency’s failure to take similar action against American and Southwest during this spring’s revelations they did not execute airworthiness directives on their aircraft.
“When this oversight was revealed, it was shown that a number of the carrier's airplanes suffered from the unsafe condition that prompted issuance of the AD,” said NATA. “Moreover, the failure to comply with the ADs on or before the required deadline was apparently known to some in the FAA and they approved the airlines actions. Simply put, a Part 121 air carrier operated unairworthy aircraft on multiple occasions with passengers aboard. The penalty was a $10 million fine, but Southwest's air carrier certificate was not suspended or revoked and the FAA allowed them to continue operations despite this significant safety lapse.” NATA also indicated that during the Air Trek action, the operator was not given the opportunity to respond to FAA claims or findings.
NATA’s efforts on operational control resulted in educational seminars, regular meetings on the subject, and an ongoing open dialogue to ensure that agency concerns are addressed while ensuring fairness to the operating community. Related Story
“The FAA's recent use of emergency suspensions highlights the lack of consistent procedures in regulatory oversight of the Part 135 community compared to their Part 121 counterpart and raises concerns about the authority given to local FAA inspectors,” said NATA. “FAA-assigned local inspectors are granted authority by the Administrator to inspect, oversee and ensure compliance with the regulations. Operators document their procedures for compliance in various manuals that are approved by the local FAA office. Operators seek guidance when compliance questions arise. However, a lack of consistency results in the operators' inability to rely upon what they are told by their local FAA office. Time and again, inspection teams from FAA headquarters or regional offices descend upon an operator and determine that even though processes were approved locally they are now deemed deficient and noncompliant. Often, these inspection and enforcement actions occur without the agency even bringing the local inspectors into the process. Inconsistent and varying interpretations of FAA regulations are not only costly for the industry, they also demonstrate a shortcoming in the FAA's ability to coordinate its workforce and ensure that the decision-making abilities vested in inspectors are respected across all divisions of the agency, impairing efforts to achieve a uniform safety standard nationwide.”
“NATA agrees that the FAA must ensure compliance with the regulations, but believes the FAA must also provide a reliable mechanism for an operator to have assurance that his or her business is indeed compliant,” said the organization. “It is discriminatory for the FAA to take enforcement against an operator when the action in question was known to and approved by the operator's local FAA inspector. If the FAA intends to continue to state that their inspector workforce acts with the authority of the Administrator, then an inspector's approval must be respected and relied upon as a defense by an operator.