NATA Sends Letters To Members Expressing Anger

The following letter was sent to NATA members by President Jim Coyne concerning the recent Certificate action undertaken by the FAA against AMI Jet Charter, Inc., of Burlingame, CA.

Coyne really took the FAA to task here and describes their actions as, "...driven more by arrogance and a failure to understand how Part 135 is different from Part 121 than by true concerns about the safety of operations conducted on AMI aircraft. "

Dear NATA Member:

I am extremely angered by the Federal Aviation Administration's decision last Friday to revoke the operating certificate of AMI Jet Charter based in Burlingame, CA. This shocking development certainly calls into question what was once a productive and professional relationship between NATA and the FAA and raises legitimate concerns over the unilateral authority select members of the FAA legal team have over operational control issues affecting the Part 135 industry.

NATA has worked very closely with FAA safety officials since operational control became a hot issue more than two years ago. Operational control concerns arose in the wake of the Challenger 604 accident at Teterboro Airport in February, 2005. Specifically, the FAA raised concerns with the operational control procedures of the aircraft operator involved in the accident, Platinum Jet Management.

We have proceeded with the best interests of our members in mind and worked with the FAA in good faith to address the agency's concerns. Since that time, the association has led a number of efforts, many in conjunction with the FAA, to ensure that the Part 135 industry was informed and prepared to comply with the new policies being implemented by headquarters on a national basis through Operations Specification A008. Countless hours were invested by NATA and operators to educate the FAA on the legitimate business practices common in our industry.

NATA has also worked closely with the FAA and AMI Jet Charter to ensure that AMI was treated fairly and given every opportunity to continue its day-to-day operations while working with the FAA to address the concerns that prompted the investigation that began seven months ago. Sadly, while we believe officials within the FAA's safety office have been forthright and willing to work with AMI, a select few attorneys at the agency have taken it upon themselves to act to suspend and now revoke AMI's certificate despite evidence of AMI's efforts to ensure compliance with the FAA's frequently changing standards. These attorneys have essentially derailed the operations of one of the biggest and best Part 135 certificate holders in the country for reasons other than safety.

As you may have read, the FAA issued a revocation of AMI's certificate because of concerns with the business relationship which exists between AMI and aircraft management company TAG Aviation. As recently as 2005, the Department of Transportation investigated the AMI-TAG relationship and ultimately TAG Aviation paid a fine and AMI-TAG worked with the DOT to ensure that the relationship between both organizations was legal and legitimate.

NATA believes that this action against AMI is driven more by arrogance and a failure to understand how Part 135 is different from Part 121 than by true concerns about the safety of operations conducted on AMI aircraft.

NATA remains in close contact with AMI. As we consider our next steps, all options remain on the table.

Rest assured NATA will remain on top of this issue in order to protect our members' interests and ensure that any further actions taken by the FAA are appropriate and justifiable.

Sincerely,
James K. Coyne, President

FMI: www.nata.aero