NATA Criticizes Air Trek Action

National Air Transportation Association (NATA) President James K. Coyne criticized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) following the agency's latest emergency suspension order on operational control issues, this one grounding Air Trek, a Part 135 certificate holder and air ambulance operator, based in Punta Gorda, FL. The complaint is strikingly similar to those lodged 20 years ago by regional air carriers when regionals received certificate revocations as the norm compared to the fines against the major airlines. Analysis There, too, operators were being shut down for following their own, FAA-approved manuals.
“The FAA's recent use of emergency suspensions calls into question fairness in regulatory oversight of the Part 135 community when compared to their Part 121 counterparts and raises concerns about the true authority given to local FAA inspectors,” said the organization.
In a letter to FAA Acting Administrator Robert A. Sturgell, Coyne highlighted a number of the cooperative efforts involving the FAA and the association over the last two and a half years on operational control issues, stressing their importance in enhancing compliance with the new guidance within the industry while educating the inspector workforce.
However, said NATA, in view of the on-going issuance of emergency suspension orders, the association believes that fundamental fairness in regulatory oversight is being compromised to the detriment of the Part 135 on-demand air charter community.
"Despite repeated assertions from the FAA that the agency would ensure fairness in the evaluation of operational control, it has become clear that the FAA favors certain classes of air carriers over others,” said Coyne. “Over the last 24 months, the FAA has issued, or threatened to issue, numerous emergency suspension or emergency revocation orders to Part 135 carriers that have ultimately resulted in the loss of certificates for the operators involved. However, while Part 135 air carriers have received the ultimate penalty for operational infractions, their Part 121 counterparts are simply fined and permitted to operate," said Coyne.
Addressing the growing concern that the authority given to local FAA inspectors is quickly becoming obsolete as federal investigators issue these emergency orders, Coyne stated, "The FAA has placed our operator members in a catch-22 situation. Their 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 FAA via the local office. Operators seek guidance when compliance questions arise from their local inspectors. Yet clearly, operators cannot 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."
While agreeing that FAA must ensure compliance with the regulations, NATA wants a reliable mechanism to assure operators they are compliant. “It is inexcusable and 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,” Coyne continued. “If the FAA intends to continue to state that their inspector workforce acts with the authority of the Administrator, then indeed an inspector's approval should be respected and relied upon as a defense by an operator."