US ‘Public Use’ aviation – what are the airworthiness implications?

[Jackonicko]

Apologies in advance for the long post. I hope that you guys might educate me, and that this post might stimulate interesting debate.

 

There's an interesting thread running on PPRuNe, and I have the original poster's permission to 'scavenge' and consolidate his basic questions.

 

I should explain that the whole way in which Government aviation is organised in the USA is very foreign to a Brit - the plethora of Government Departments and the bewildering array of Federal/State/County/City agencies (which differ from state to state) all make it very hard to follow.

 

Talking to State Troopers at Heli Expo it became clear that one state might have all Law Enforcement air organised at state level, while its neighbour might have a State Police air unit, augmented by county or city units, or both, or just 'local level' units. I didn't feel too bad about not knowing how it was organised, as the guys I was speaking to only knew how it was done in their state!

 

But I'd like to feel less woefully ignorant.

 

Over here in the UK, it's pretty simple - law enforcement agencies fly civilian aircraft, with the CAA certificating aircraft, maintenance and crewing, and the pilots (many of whom are ex-Mil) are all properly licenced CPLs or ATPLs.

 

The idea of plucking a Police Sergeant from the force and training him to fly on the air unit would not 'fly' here, and is therefore alien and interesting.

 

The lessons of how organisational arrangements affect safety transcend national boundaries - and those lessons need to be learned by everyone.

 

Safety is everyone's business, as they say.

 

I understand that when government entities operate helicopters they can operate as Public Aircraft under what might loosely be defined as “public use” rules.

 

As I read it these effectively mean that as long as the government entity in question is not using the aircraft for commercial purposes and is not competing with commercial operators - eg carrying persons or property for hire or reward (is ‘compensation or hire’ the favoured US wording?), they don’t fall under the normal rules of civil aviation and do not require an FAA Airworthiness Certificate (FAA form 8130-7). This is what allows them to use ex military types (Forest Service Cobras, Police OH-58s, Sheriff’s SH-3s, Border Patrol OH-6s, etc) which may have no FAA certification.

 

Right so far?

 

Like military aircraft these government helicopters don’t fall under FAA oversight (except with regard to Part 91 and certain other air traffic rules), they do not have Airworthiness Certificates and they answer only to their own internal airworthiness authorities. So they don’t need the piece of paper that gives a civilian aircraft its legal authority to fly, and which guarantees that the aircraft currently meets relevant and applicable maintenance and airworthiness standards?

 

Why would that matter? We all know that the military branches have their own robust airworthiness authorities and procedures - in some ways more stringent and more useful than the FAA’s.

 

But is the same necessarily true of other Government agencies, Police aviation departments and the like, which, as government entities, national, state, county and city aviation units are able to operate under the same public use laws as the military?

 

I know that some (probably even most) Police Departments have always been commendably professional and extremely rigorous – but because they are not compelled to be, some are not - or do not have to be. Is even the very existence of such a loophole acceptable? It is clear that the hands-off approach, relying on voluntary participation, works a lot of the time, and that many of these air units do have much stricter requirements than are required by the FAA.

 

But not all have such high standards, and it seems that there may be some operators whose standards fall below what would be acceptable in a commercial operator.

 

Do Police air support units always have the same expertise and/or infrastructure to develop their own training, maintenance and airworthiness oversight departments that the military take for granted? And even if capable, are they required to do so?

 

I've been dealing with people who are obviously passionate and worried about this, and I need to understand what they tell me more clearly, and to assess whether I'm getting a one-sided or skewed view from people who may have their own agenda. I have a sincere desire to educate myself, and there's nothing better than a forum like this for getting the operator's perspective, and the perspective of the wider rotorcraft community.

 

I know that an Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP) was formed about ten years ago specifically to address the maintenance issues surrounding the various aircraft being operated by non-military government entities. I know that this ICAP drew up a credible and respected maintenance programme for such aircraft.

 

But I believe that ICAP has no authority, and that the ICAP guide remains advisory in nature and is not enforceable. I know that 15 agencies have signed up to it, but that while these cover most Federal law enforcement helicopters, plenty of more local operators could (and do?) slip between the gaps. ICAP’s goal is to ensure that government operations are as safe or safer than commercial operations. Is it succeeding? Can it succeed without compulsion?

 

As if this were not enough, I understand that under public use rules not only are these aircraft not required to have Airworthiness Certificates, but their pilots are not required to be licensed by the FAA nor to hold an FAA medical certificate either.

 

But surely no government department would allow unhealthy, unlicensed pilots to fly unairworthy aircraft on public duties?

 

In one case that I was told about, however, a particular Sheriff simply found a couple of deputies who had flown in the military, and used them to form the basis of his new flight department. The story goes that they then trained further pilots on their own authority, including a new Commanding Officer.

 

“The first time I met the Sergeant in charge, she was flying an OH-58 into the local heliport for maintenance. It was so scary that people were running for the hanger to get out of the way, thinking that she was going to crash. It turned out that she had only about 10 hours of instruction time from one of the other ‘flying cops’ and no formal instruction. They can just get in and go.” One horrified onlooker told me.

 

Tell me that it’s urban legend, and could not have happened, please!

 

In an advanced industrialized nation like the USA, the expectation is that public service aircraft should set the standard for safe and efficient civil air operations. But is that expectation realistic?

 

Are there actually good reasons for resisting tighter regulation? I know that some police aviation units believe that forcing them to obtain an airworthiness certificate for their helicopters would be cost prohibitive, and would prevent them from fully carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities.

 

I know that some also feel that such regulation makes it more difficult to acquire useful ex-military assets which could not viably be sourced via the usual civilian market. Indeed it would be hard to see how the LA County Sheriff’s department (for example) could viably replace the capability offered by its SAR-roled US Navy surplus H-3 Sea Kings using a fully FAA-certificated platform.

 

I have some sympathy with those who resist the 'dead hand of bureaucracy' because of its stultifying effect on progress, though when it comes to aviation, I am a firm believer in the need for legislation and enforcement to cater for the 'bad apples', however rare they may be.

 

Cowboy methods are great if you're rounding up cows, but maybe the FAA is the right organisation for looking after aviation?

 

And if the law is a 'minimum standard' then where is the argument against the ICAP guide on maintenance being compulsory and enforceable?

 

Why shouldn't it be an absolute requirement that pilots flying public aircraft should have a CPL and a specified number of hours P1, perhaps with exemptions for military trained pilots?

 

Why not lay down minimum training standards?

 

I'm interested in the view that 'limiting the powers of the Federal Government', and reducing cost to local taxpayers seem to be more important aims to some than do maximising safety and professional standards.

 

Please understand, these are critical-sounding questions, but I am not necessarily offering criticism.

[Darren Hughes]

I've been watching that topic unfold on PPRUNE and was wondering what the general consensus would be on here. Unfortunately the US guys got very defensive on PPRUNE and the topic hasn't really resulted in any constructive answers except for some of Shawn Coyle's answers. So hopefully it can be a little more constructive on here.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Darren Hughes

[apiaguy]

in my opinion.... and to paraphrase....

 

The US was and is founded on freedom and lack of government intervention unless necessary to protect the public (right, right, I know...)... the mission of a police or other public use is the protection or aid of the public and they have been exempted from the FAA regs to do as they please and see fit that may not coincide with current regulations.

 

The FAA (or for that matter congress) in all their power to protect the public from themselves enacted the airworthiness certification regs that require an airworthiness certificate to any privately operated aircraft...... that "airworthiness certificate" surely does not "guarantee" that the aircraft is in fact airworthy.... that is the duty of the pilot or mechanic inspecting the aircraft and only shows that it at one time met the certification requirements and has not been revoked.

 

Why do we need more laws?

The government believes the private individual is not responsible enough to properly regulate themselves and provide proper maintenance and thus requires them to do so....

The government is exempt from these policies because it being so smart knows when to provide proper maintenance.

Makes sense now.... huh?

[Gomer Pylot]

The short answer is that in the US, the federal government has limited powers under the constitution, and what the Brit poster wants is simply unconstitutional. He seems unable to understand the differences in the governmental standards between the two countries. It's not a matter of being defensive, it's simply that the US government doesn't have the power to enforce what he seems to want enforced.

[Kilkenny]

I fly public use. What's an airworthiness certifcate?

[EC120AV8R]

I fly public use. What's an airworthiness certifcate?

 

Exactly. The original poster is wrapped around the axel on a CofA and it is worthless piece of paper unless you have a good maintenance program. There are plenty of certificated aircraft flying around that are not very well maintained. Besides, operating under Public use carries a whole load of restrictions on the operator and use of the aircraft he completely missed the boat on.

 

We have all heard the horror stories of non-certificated pilots operating aircraft under the auspices of public use. Yeah, some of that did happen...years ago. In today's litigious society, I don't think you will find an agency that would buy that liability and allow it. In fact, I would almost guarantee you won't.

[Kilkenny]

We actually have insurance on ours. One of ours has the whole kit'n'kaboodle with hull insurance. A 40 year old OH-58C with hull insurance. Probably the first in the nation.

 

So, yes, you must be rated to fly ours.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Kilkenny