Gulfstream Safety Critiqued

An internal Federal Aviation Administration investigation into safety practices at Gulfstream International Airlines, which is vying for federally-subsidized essential air service to the north country's three airports, recommended the revocation of the company's air carrier certificate.

The administration never pursued that course of action, but the allegations, including scheduling pilots and dispatchers for more than the legal limit and faulty maintenance of aircraft, resulted in a hefty $1.3 million fine in May 2009.

Company officials adamently deny any wrongdoing, calling it a paperwork problem that did not put in jeopardy the safety of any passengers.

But interviews with former Gulfstream pilots and the internal FAA investigation — both of which the company rejects — reveal a safety record that is more troubled than company officials have let on.

"It was obvious that the company expected its pilots to violate federal laws to benefit the company's bottom line," said Kenny Edwards, a former Gulfstream pilot.

Mr. Edwards said that in December 2007, he refused to fly a Gulfstream airplane with faulty equipment. A cockpit device that helps avoid mid-air collisions was not working, Mr. Edwards said, and when he refused to fly it, he was fired.

He is suing the company in Broward County, Florida, near the company's Fort Lauderdale headquarters, on whistleblower law violations and defamation.

Mr. Edwards filed a whistleblower complaint with the FAA and then went to Congress with his allegations.

"I said, in my opinion, this airline is going to kill somebody if they're going to operate this recklessly," Mr. Edwards said. "I wanted someone in Congress to know about it."

Another former pilot, Patrick T. Hart, is also suing the company in Broward County, alleging a violation of whistleblower law.

Mr. Hart reported a colleague who was bringing women who were not members of the flight crew onto the flight deck, an FAA violation, Mr. Hart said. Because of his complaints, Gulfstream fired him in January 2007, Mr. Hart said.

"If it's a safety issue, they're going to find some way to get it under the rug," Mr. Hart said, who, like Mr. Edwards, claimed numerous other violations against the company and a culture of regulation evasion.

David Hackett, Gulfstream's president and CEO, said in an e-mail Tuesday evening that Mr. Hart and Mr. Edwards, the two Gulfstream pilots, "are disgruntled employees who have issues dating back from their employment several years ago."

As for Mr. Edwards, "I did look into those some time ago and could find no corroborating evidence to support his claims."

Mr. Hackett said he believed that Mr. Hart was fired because of a personal issue he had with another pilot.

It wasn't until Mr. Edwards' whistleblower complaint, and Congressional inquiries, that the airline came under intense FAA scrutiny, in 2008. The investigation found that the airline had overbooked its pilots and dispatchers and improperly maintained air blowers, the plastic nozzles that burst air onto passengers.

"These acts placed the flying public at great risk due to fatigued flight crewmembers, fatigued dispatchers, and due to transporting passengers on aicraft that did not meet type design," the documents conclude, adding that the facts demonstrated intentional violations and "an attitude of non-compliance."

Mr. Hackett has said that it was simply a matter of poor record-keeping, and that pilots were never in the air more than federal regulations allow. He also said that the maintenance violations were not serious.

"There was nothing operational or safety related," Mr. Hackett said last month, before the internal investigation was obtained by the Watertown Daily Times.

In an interview last month, an FAA spokeswoman disagreed with that assessment.

"Any time an airline can't show proper record-keeping, it's a safety issue," said Alison J. Duquette. "If they scheduled crews in excess of what the rules allow, that's a safety issue to us."

Gulfstream and the FAA reached a settlement in July this year on the claims. Gulfstream must pay $550,000 over the next five years as part of the agreement. Mr. Hackett said that his company had wanted to fight the allegations, but could not afford to spend time in a lengthy legal battle.

Mr. Hackett, in an e-mail Tuesday evening, said that the FAA inspector who recommended revocation of the airlines' right to fly "had no idea what he was looking at and it was discarded by the FAA as nonsense."

The FAA did not return requests for comment about why the agency did not pursue a revocation of the airline's right to fly, and declined to provide the internal FAA investigation, which was obtained via a former Gulfstream employee.

The violations harmed passenger safety, even if they were not intentional, as the former pilots and the internal FAA document allege, FAA officials and documents said.

"Accuracy of required records is an essential part of maintaining the highest degree of safety," the FAA investigation said. "It ensures the interests and safety of the flying publc are maintained."

Mr. Hackett and other company officials, in their presentations to north country officials, said that the violations did not have to do with safety.

Jefferson County Administrator Robert F. Hagemann III said Tuesday that at this time, he does not regret endorsing Gulfstream International Airlines.

Massena Town Supervisor Joseph D. Gray said he rested his faith in the federal Department of Transportation, which let the company bid for essential air service. The DOT will not allow a company to bid for service if it is unsafe or if it has financial problems.

He had no regrets about endorsing the company, he said, even after revelations about the company's safety record and financial position.

Indeed, the company recently secured $1.5 million in financing. Company officials say they believe the money will help the company nagivate its current financial turbulence.

The Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority endorsed the incumbent Cape Air, a Hyannis, Mass.-based carrier, at its August board meeting.

Cape Air's safety records, obtained from the FAA through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal no significant violations. Nor did the records of Charter Air Transport, which, officials have concluded, is not terribly interested in providing service. Officials from the company were not endorsed by any public officials, and made no public visits to the north country.

A decision from the DOT is expected in the coming days.