Pilots Warn of Safety Lapses at Regional Airlines
This is one of our editors’ picks from our ongoing roundup of Investigations Elsewhere.
As if there weren’t enough reasons to be wary about flying these days, Bloomberg News gives a disconcerting account today of safety concerns at regional airlines, which operate half of all scheduled passenger flights in the U.S.
Regional airlines usually team up with major airlines, offering cheap costs in exchange for the major airline’s name on its flights. But to keep those costs low, safety measures can fall by the wayside, according to pilots interviewed by Bloomberg. The last five commercial planes involved in fatal crashes in the U.S. were operated by regional airlines.
Bloomberg zeroes in on Gulfstream International Airlines (not related to the business jet manufacturer Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.), which has never had a fatal crash, but was hit with a proposed fine of $1.3 million in May for multiple violations.
Among the findings by Federal Aviation Administration inspectors: Gulfstream used car parts in its planes and cleared planes to fly even after company employees repeatedly reported malfunctions. The company also operates a pilot training school, which pilots say has an unhealthy relationship with the airline. "We offer the fastest possible transition to the ‘Right Seat’ of a commercial airliner," the school says.
Gulfstream CEO David Hackett said all of the airline’s first officers meet FAA standards to fly a commercial airline. A company spokesman defended its safety precautions, and said it is appealing the FAA’s penalty.
Sen. Mark Begich, a member of the subcommittee on aviation, said that the FAA has failed to ensure that regional airlines are as safe as their major partners. Agency spokeswoman Alison Duquette said that one of its top priorities is making performance consistent across major and regional airlines. "We definitely acknowledge there needs to be a greater level of professionalism," she said of regional airlines.
Get Updates
Our Hottest Stories
- Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners
- Why Fannie and Freddie Are Hesitating to Help Homeowners
- Bets Against Homeowners Must Stop, Freddie Mac Was Told
- Drive-by Scanning: Officials Expand Use and Dose of Radiation for Security Screening
- By the Numbers: Life and Death at Foxconn
- How the Stimulus Revived the Electric Car
- $10 Million Fine on Red Cross Highlights Its Troubled History of Blood Services
- Bill Would Require Independent Study of X-Ray Body Scanners
- Allergan Erases Doctor Payment Records
- With Spotlight on Super PAC Dollars, Nonprofits Escape Scrutiny
- Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners
- Drive-by Scanning: Officials Expand Use and Dose of Radiation for Security Screening
- Bill Would Require Independent Study of X-Ray Body Scanners
- How the Stimulus Revived the Electric Car
- Meet the Obscure Federal Regulator Who's Not Helping Homeowners
- By the Numbers: Life and Death at Foxconn
- Why Fannie and Freddie Are Hesitating to Help Homeowners
- $10 Million Fine on Red Cross Highlights Its Troubled History of Blood Services
- One Soldier's Progress Against Traumatic Brain Injury
- Bets Against Homeowners Must Stop, Freddie Mac Was Told
2 comments
Dave
Dec. 31, 2009, 11:32 a.m.
From David Hackett, CEO, Gulfstream International Airlines
ProPublica.org relied upon the Bloomberg News story, so I wanted to share a letter to the editor from me that Bloomberg made available to its members with terminals but hasn’t yet posted on Bloomberg.com:
“The Bloomberg story on regional airlines is repeatedly flawed in references to Gulfstream International Airlines. In virtually every instance of the allegations made by former employees in the story, Gulfstream provided or offered to provide complete and total documentation proving the allegations were false, but Bloomberg chose to ignore the evidence. Gulfstream challenged Bloomberg to get documentation from those making the allegations and received no such documentation because there isn’t any. At best, the story carried general statements of denial rather than citing the specific information we provided, which would give the reader a much more balanced view and enough information upon which to judge credibility. As for the proposed FAA fine, the reporter was provided detailed information regarding the items and largely ignored those details, again giving us only the benefit of a general denial.
We believe this story was designed from the outset to “prove” the personal opinion of the reporter regarding the safety of regional airlines, an opinion she stated at the beginning of the discussions with Gulfstream. Facts became irrelevant to sensationalist conjecture or outright falsehoods. Bloomberg should be ashamed of its shoddy reporting.
We run an excellent airline with the highest level of safety and have an impeccable safety record. We are incensed that Bloomberg chose to ignore the irrefutable evidence we provided and decided to nevertheless air those false complaints. We can prove our side of the argument.
The claim by Edwards is false. The avoidance system was working and continued to work long after the flight that he refused to take. He was terminated because he refused to meet with the chief pilot to discuss that incident. There was no leak in the door, no pressurization issue at all. We checked log books for months before and after that flight and there was never a report of a leak on that door. If Edwards saw a leak he would have been obligated by law to report it and he didn’t because there wasn’t one. The reporter knew that.
Mary Hebig claims to have quit over some moral dilemma but she asked for her job back a few weeks later and also can’t document her claims. The reporter knew that.
Brisco can’t produce a single piece of documentation that he raised any safety concerns because he didn’t. He originally told Bloomberg that he was fired which was not true and he only apparently changed his story after we offered to open his personnel file. Where is his credibility?
The reporter had volumes of detail regarding the proposed FAA fine. She used the term automotive, not because it was the technical term used by the FAA, but because it sounds like automobile, which is what she thought it meant. It doesn’t. It means a belt driven mechanical device. We used the same parts from the same manufacturer as originally installed on the airplane. The issue is whether we had permission to buy from the parts manufacturer directly or had to buy them through the aircraft manufacturer. We are confident that we did have that right and will prevail on that issue and the other substantive issues. The reporter knew all of that but it isn’t in the story. Rather, what is there is designed to make it look like Gulfstream put an automobile part on an airplane, which is ridiculous.
There are many, many flaws in this story. These are just some of them.”
David Hackett
Chief Executive Officer
Gulfstream International Airlines
Dave
Dec. 31, 2009, 12:37 p.m.
The letter is now posted on Bloomberg.com as well.
Commenting on this story is closed.