Air Beat Magazine - Journal of the
Airborne Law Enforcement Association
Back to Air Beat Back Issues Index
Dividing The Load:
How LAPD Handles Aircraft Maintenance
By Mark Williams
LAPD Maintenance Section
To deal with the high volume of aircraft that the Los Angeles Police
Department’s Air Support Division must maintain—averaging approximately
18,000 flight hours per year—LAPD shares the responsibility for maintenance
of their fleet with the Department of General Services. General Services is
responsible for actually performing the maintenance, and LAPD is responsible
for coordinating the needed maintenance.
The Helicopter Maintenance Section of General Services is
headquartered at the Van Nuys Airport in the City of Los Angeles. The
section has a satellite maintenance shop at Hooper Heliport, which is on the
rooftop of the C. Erwin Piper Technical Center in downtown Los Angeles. The
Van Nuys hangar serves as the primary repair facility for the City’s fleet
of 26 helicopters. In addition to major repairs and modifications, scheduled
and unscheduled inspections are routinely completed at the Van Nuys
facility.
Hooper Heliport is the world’s largest rooftop heliport.
General Service’s mechanics routinely provide normal services and repairs
for the LAPD helicopter fleet at this location. To obtain service, pilots
complete trouble reports known as "squawks." Pilots detail repair issues on
the squawks and maintenance personnel address the service and repairs.
The Helicopter Maintenance Section not only provides
service for the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Fire
Department, but also to the California Department of Water & Power. There
are 17 helicopters assigned to the LAPD, five assigned to the LAFD, and four
assigned to the DWP.
A valuable asset to the Helicopter Maintenance Section is
the Quality Assurance Unit. It operates in a lateral capacity to the
Maintenance Section. Quality Assurance augments the maintenance staff,
helping to insure repairs are completed to the highest standards of
excellence to include research of FAA Airworthiness Directives and
applicable bulletins.
Ninety percent of the service to LAPD, LAFD, and DWP is
scheduled. Helicopters assigned to LAPD are seen for 100-hour inspections
approximately once every two to three weeks. LAFD helicopters are due for
the 100-hour inspections approximately once every three months. Since the
September 11 terrorist attacks, DWP flights have increased 400 percent.
Their helicopters are now inspected an average of once every one and a half
weeks.
All of the helicopter mechanics possess an FAA-issued
Airframe and Power Plant license. Although not required as a condition of
employment by the City, most also have an FAA-issued Inspection
Authorization License that permits them to complete annual inspections, Part
337 major repairs and alterations.
At the Van Nuys facility, the mechanics handle mechanical
repairs, component overhaul, paint, sheet metal work, fabrication for
mission equipment and repair and upkeep of the Fire Department’s aerial
water tanks and hoists. The City employs seven supervisors and 27 mechanics
that operate on day watch and night watch. Two mechanics are staffed on
Saturdays, and additional mechanics can be called in if needed during the
weekend.
The FAA is mandated to inspect the facility at least
twice annually, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
also inspects the facility once a year.
Two LAPD pilots are also assigned to the maintenance
section--the LAPD Maintenance Sergeant and the Maintenance Coordinator. The
Maintenance Sergeant is required to supervise the Coordinator (whose duties
are detailed below) and to serve as the liaison with Air Support's officer
in command.
Job Responsibilities
The Maintenance Coordinator is responsible for the daily activities
associated with the maintenance of department aircraft, which include:
-
Coordinating and scheduling required maintenance with
Department of General Services. In order to maintain an even and
consistent flow of aircraft in maintenance, it is the Maintenance
Coordinator’s responsibility to schedule the order in which aircraft are
flown.
-
Ensuring compliance with any Airworthiness Directives
affecting department aircraft, engines and components.
-
Conducting post maintenance Functional Check Flights.
-
Participating in Flight Testing with the FAA and
manufacturers in acquiring any Supplemental Type Certifications for
department aircraft.
-
Working with manufacturers and aftermarket vendors in
the research and development of products useful to the City’s airborne law
enforcement missions.
-
Other activities associated with aircraft maintenance,
certification and airworthiness of department aircraft.
During this past year, LAPD maintenance pilots have been
involved in the following equipment testing:
-
FAA flight test of 200-amp starter-generator for the AS
350.
-
FAA flight test and certification of the Tyler Sniper
Platform.
-
Design and testing of a new digital 200-ammeter gauge
for the AS350.\
-
Product testing for Spectrolab’s Nightsun II.
-
Several ongoing video downlink projects enabling
digital and analog downlink to wireless handheld devices.
We’ve Come A Long Way
The LAPD didn’t always operate such an extensive helicopter fleet, though.
The department purchased its first helicopter, a Hiller 12-C, in 1957 at a
cost of $38,770. It was purchased to patrol the Los Angeles freeway system.
As the effectiveness of the police helicopter soon became apparent, a second
helicopter was purchased in 1963, and a third was purchased in 1965.
Between 1968 and 1971, three Bell 206 Jet Ranger
helicopters and five Bell 47G-5 helicopters were added to the fleet,
bringing the total to 11 helicopters. What is now known as the LAPD Air
Support Division at the time had 31 permanent employees.
Funding was obtained in 1973 to purchase seven new Bell
206B-III Jet Ranger helicopters and to upgrade three of the original Jet
Rangers to Jet Ranger IIs. In 1974, the Helicopter Section was upgraded to
an Air Support Division, which was manned by 78 full-time employees. The
aircraft fleet then consisted of ten turbine-powered helicopters, five
piston helicopters and one single engine Cessna airplane.
By 1981, two of the Bell Jet Rangers had accumulated over
14,000 hours and went into maintenance for major overhauls. In addition, the
Air Support Division had by then taken possession of its first two Bell Jet
Ranger III helicopters.
In 1989, five new American Eurocopter AS350 B-1s were
purchased to replace the five remaining Bell 47G helicopters. But due to
budgetary constraints, the replacement program was temporarily put on hold.
In 1996, Air Support Division acquired three Bell OH-58Cs, one Bell UH-1H
Huey and one Beechcraft C-12 airplane from a military surplus program.
In 1997, Air Support Division replaced part of the aging
fleet with three new Bell 407s. At that point, LAPD was flying six different
helicopter models. Due to flight and maintenance standardization concerns, a
decision was made to consolidate the number of helicopter models being
operated.
In 2000, the remaining AS350 B-1s, Bell 407s and two of the OH-58
helicopters were replaced with ten new American Eurocopter B-2s.
Today, the fleet consists of ten AS350 B-2s, five Bell
206B-III’s, one Bell UH-1H, one Bell OH-58C, and one eechcraft Kingair A200
airplane.
Communications Make It Work
All of the pilot’s radios today include two VHF aircraft transceivers, VOR,
GPS and a transponder. A TCAD system and a Sandel multi-function display
give the pilot additional situational awareness.
Each tactical flight officer has a multi-mode wideband transceiver, covering
a frequency range from 29 to 960 MHz, ensuring the aircrew the ability to
communicate with nearly every agency that operates in Southern California.
Two APCO-25 digital department radios allow the crew to communicate with
ground units. An interface for a handheld radio gives the crew another radio
for backup and allows the radios from other agencies to be easily
incorporated.br>
LAPD’s Avionics Group
The avionics group consists of five seasoned technicians and operates out of
two repair stations. The technicians maintain each of the installed systems,
install new systems and are responsible for the inspections of all of the
aircraft avionics systems. This group has been instrumental in the
development of many new products and systems.
The complexity of equipment an aircrew has available is
growing every day, often as a result of military developments.
The challenge of any maintenance avionics department is
to make the aircraft a more effective tool by integrating this technology
and simultaneously simplifying the job of the aircrew.
(Back to top)
Read Carefully
Don’t Get Distracted
By Jim ymankski
Simple, everyday events can be the cause of severe
accidents, if we let them take our attention away from the tasks we are
assigned to do.
It was a typically ordinary day, and a typically ordinary
job. Things were quiet in the hangar as Frank was nearing the completion of
his portion of a 100-hour inspection on a 206B Jet Ranger. The aircraft had
a solid history. It had always been treated well, and it came into the
inspection with essentially no carried-forward complications. Frank was
responsible for all of the engine related work, a task that he had been
involved with many times during his 17 years as a mechanic. His fellow
mechanics, Paul and Rudy, had already completed all of the airframe items.
There was no particular pressure from operations to
return the ship to service; the other aircraft were away on contracts, and
no other high priority jobs were waiting. It was a welcome relief to handle
an easy job in a usually busy hangar.
Nothing out of the ordinary had been discovered so far
during the 100-hour. Just the routine fluid and filter replacements, chip
detector checks and inspections.
Frank had just completed the last engine item by
inspecting the engine compressor blades and, with Paul's help, was
reinstalling the engine intake fairing. The intake fairing on this aircraft
is the standard configuration without the particle separator assembly.
Instead of a particle separator, the engine is partially protected from
ingesting FOD by a screen which extends from left to right around the front
of the engine intake, and from the bottom to within several inches of the
top of the intake fairing. With his usual thoroughness, Frank was wiping
some dirt and a light film of residue from the bottom of the left side of
the air intake tunnel.
It was then that Rudy shouted to him from the office.
"Frank, your wife is on the phone." Frank immediately stopped what he was
doing and walked over to the phone where he learned that his wife was upset,
fearing that their 10-year-old son might have a broken arm from a fall out
of a tree. She asked if he could come home and help her. Of course, he said
he would.
Before leaving, Frank rapidly signed off his work and
asked Rudy to help Paul button up the aircraft. Since it was already
mid-afternoon, Frank said that he did not expect to be back at work that
day, and perhaps not at the normal start time the next.
Rudy, another experienced mechanic, said he'd finish up
and make sure the ramp run-up check was completed before returning the
aircraft to service. He would take care of everything.
Unfortunately, neither Paul nor Rudy noticed that Frank
had left a shop rag in the throat of the intake tunnel that he was cleaning.
When finished, Rudy advised operations to send out a
pilot, as the aircraft was ready for a routine run-up and ramp check. The
engine start and run-up check on the ramp were completed without any
problem, even though the shop rag was still lying in the intake tunnel, just
beneath the screen.
The rag remained there until the next morning, when the
aircraft was climbing out on its first takeoff since the 100-hour
inspection. It was not until then, with the increasing airspeed, that the
airflow through the intake was sufficient to draw the rag over the screen
and into the engine intake.
The pilot heard a sudden "bang" and felt a left yaw and a
decrease in main rotor RPM. Without delay, he lowered the collective, rolled
the throttle to flight idle and entered autorotation. Touchdown was fast and
hard, bending the skids back, pitching the nose forward so far as to allow
the main rotor blades to strike the ground and resulting in the rotor system
separating from the main gearbox.
Fortunately, the airframe remained intact and came to a
stop upright with the engine still running.
The pilot and each of the three passengers walked away shaken, but unharmed.
The post accident investigation determined that the power decrease
experienced by the pilot was the temporary response of the engine ingesting,
disintegrating, burning and passing the pieces of the shop rag. The
investigators concluded that, prior to touchdown, the engine might have been
able to produce normal engine power. Unfortunately, the pilot was unable to
determine that fact during the brief period of time between the "bang" and
the autorotative touchdown.
So, who is to blame for this accident? Frank, for leaving
the rag behind? Rudy or Paul, for not noticing the rag when buttoning up
after the 100-hour inspection? The pilot, who did not look into the engine
intake during his preflight check? Or, was it Frank's wife or his son?
Frank deserves most of the blame, but Rudy, Paul, and the
pilot have a share too. Frank’s wife and son, while seemingly innocent, even
played a part in the chain of events. Each of them had some contribution.
Each of them was either an agent or cause of this accident due to
distraction.
Distractions are significant and frequent factors in
aviation incidents and accidents. Distractions can be powerful interrupters
of routine activities, and they can produce deadly results. Distractions can
be generated internally or externally and, if not handled and recognized as
an interruption, can affect subsequent thoughts and actions.
Distraction From Priorities
A distraction or interruption can attract and refocus attention away from
literally any form of human activity. Regardless of what one may be doing,
something else can come along that may be of equal or greater importance.
Something that cannot be ignored, or left for later. Something that demands
immediate attention.
A distraction can rearrange your priorities. What may be
of interest and importance one moment, can be abandoned and trivial the
next. For Frank, helping his wife and his son became a higher priority than
completing the relatively trivial task of closing and checking the cowlings
and fairings that were opened or removed for the 100-hour inspection.
Distracting Your _Short Term Memory
Distractions can affect short-term memory functions. Many routine human
actions are accomplished through the use of short-term memory. Among other
things, short-term memory is the temporary storing of data that may be used
to take action only once. Typically, this is the kind of data that one does
not train or formally study to retain permanently for expected repeated
future actions.
Short-term memory has a limited capacity. For the average
person, short-term memory cannot reliably retain more than about seven
unrelated or unrehearsed items. Should you already be relying on short-term
memory, an interruption or distraction can easily kick an important item out
of short-term memory.
By calling Frank to the phone, Rudy provided the
interruption that disturbed Frank's short-term memory concerning the shop
rag that was left behind.
External & Internal Distractions
Perhaps the most common form of distraction is an external agent forcing its
way into someone’s attention. An extreme example might be the thoughtless,
blustery person who brusquely walks directly into your office expecting
immediate attention regardless of your current activity, or the person who
thinks that if he talks loud enough, he can get his message across while you
are carrying on a telephone conversation with someone else.
But it's not necessary to be noisy, aggressive and
demanding to be distracting. Body language and posture, displayed when
simply approaching someone in the hangar, can serve as a silent interrupter
and attention grabber. It's not necessary to be physically close to be
intrusive to someone's activity. An expectant telephone caller, who makes no
effort to learn the situation of the receiver, can catch and distract the
receiver in the middle of some activity.
A distraction, however, need not be external. It can come
from within. Thoughts can drift from the work at hand to something entirely
different and unrelated. All sorts of things can be haunting to the point of
being persistent interruptions. Imagine where your thoughts would go if you
were sorry about recently offending a friend. Or, if one of your children
was gravely ill. Or, if you were about to depart on a two-week vacation
immediately after the end of the workday.
A distraction can be due to a personal physical condition
or situation. Are you ill? Do you have an upset stomach? Are you
experiencing a hangover? Is sweat dripping off the end of your nose as you
work on a hot ramp in the Arizona August midday sun to track and balance the
main rotor of a MD500E? Basically, is your situation uncomfortable in any
way?
The pilot of this 206B had a big interruption when the
engine coughed on climb out. The temporary power decrease symptoms were so
strong as to convince him that autorotation was the only alternative.
Indeed, it prevented him from verifying that the engine was still capable of
producing power.
Controlling Distractions
At times, it is very difficult to control distractions. For one thing,
humans are curious animals and respond to almost everything that comes to
their attention. The brain involuntarily receives data from its surroundings
--- data like the sounds of someone talking in the hallway, the glimpse of a
flickering fuel low caution light or the vibrations of a helicopter flying
over the hangar. When the data that reaches the brain exceeds a certain
threshold, or if specific attention is focused on it, it becomes consciously
recognized.
Some data is soft, subtle, and non-intrusive. It is
there, but it is easy to avoid allowing it your attention. It's the Muzak in
the elevator, the hum of your personal computer or the aroma of the coffee
brewing.
But our attitude can make something that is not
interruptive into a distraction. Can you, for example, see the different
ways you might respond, while in a telephone discussion, when either the
custodian or the boss walks silently into your office? In one case, you may
continue to focus on the telephone conversation while the custodian empties
the wastebasket. In the other, you may interrupt your telephone conversation
to attend to the boss. Any old person walking into your office need not be a
distraction. You do have the ability to ignore that person.
Other data can be sharp, brazen, and strong enough to
barge right into your thoughts. Not only are you abundantly aware of it, but
also it is very difficult to ignore. It's the smell of the MEK (Methyl Ethyl
Ketone), the sound of the engine out warning horn or the sight of the ground
shadow of another aircraft flying in your direction. These distractions
cannot be ignored.
Beating Distractions _Through Self Analysis
What is your style? Are you too easily distracted? Are you an interrupter?
Are you aware of the attention you demand of others? Do you make any effort
to determine if you are disrupting something that may be more urgent than
what you are working on? Are you assertive enough to recognize that at times
your work should take priority, and that without interrupting, some work
would never get done? Are you careful to recognize that after a distraction
is gone, it is very easy to miss something when returning to your original
task?
Knowing what sort of person you are when it comes to both
external and internal distractions can help you avoid succumbing to them.
Had Frank considered how he prioritizes his life, he may have been sure to
take care of a few final details before handing the routine 100-hour off to
Rudy and Paul.
Moreover, a proper analysis of yourself can help you
reduce the distractions that you may present to others. Had Frank’s wife
considered how her dismay over her son’s injury might affect her husband,
she may have asked someone to deliver her message to Frank at the earliest
possible convenience, rather than immediately.
Awareness
An individual's ability to remain focused, ignore non-meaningful
distractions and yet sufficiently be aware of a situation to shift focus
only when necessary is essential for successful and safe flying and
maintenance operations. Pilots and mechanics must always be alert and
receptive to new information. But they should shift their focus only if that
information is of severe importance.
Discovering and shifting attention to a life threatening
situation is not being distracted, it's being alert. A distraction occurs
when one allows his or her attention to shift to, or in some cases remain
on, something that causes you to miss something else that is more important.
The proper balance requires that an individual in the
aviation industry remember four things: ignore nuisance and trivial
distractions, avoid being an interrupter, recognize and respond to
significant distractions and develop a habit of carefully returning to the
point of distraction. Of course, that is easier said than done.
As an adult, our habits and susceptibility to
distractions are already formed. Even with an honest self-analysis and
recognition of personal habits, it requires training and discipline to
develop the ability to avoid distracting or being distracted.
(Back to top)
Managing Your Maintenance In Today’s Environment
by David "Bart" Bartkowiak
Maintaining today’s complex law enforcement aircraft
requires that the operator and maintainer both understand the intricacies
and importance of the mission of the airborne law enforcement unit. A
majority of the missions that are covered in this arena happen under the
cover of darkness, which inherently adds a greater risk to the crew as well
as the aircraft. Also, take into consideration that these aircraft are
normally pushed to the edge of their operating limits. Because of this, law
enforcement aircraft require constant monitoring not only by the aircrew,
but also during the maintenance operations./p>
A majority of operators that contract out their
maintenance also keep track of the status of their aircraft's components and
inspections. Some go so far as to network constantly with their maintenance
facility to keep track of these items, as well as service bulletins and
airworthiness directives. The cost of doing business in this way can vary
with the required inspection and repair needs. Items not normally looked at
by the flight crew can go left unnoticed, and invariably, cost more to
repair.
Normally, it is the unit supervisor or a specially
assigned officer that is required to schedule with the maintenance
contractor. Most maintenance shops can become quite busy at times, which can
delay the aircraft being returned to service. Add to this the aircraft which
cannot be taken to the shop due to an airworthiness issue, and the downtime
can become insurmountable.
Another area that must be managed is the procurement of
parts for the aircraft that are being operated. Most maintenance shops
require that you purchase your parts through their facility. This allows the
shop to certify that approved parts are being installed in the aircraft that
they are maintaining.
If, by chance, you purchase your own parts for your
maintainer to install, they will require that the proper documentation, and
most likely invoices, accompany the parts for their verification. The issue
to keep in mind here is that they are given the authority to certify your
aircraft for return to service by the Federal Aviation Administration, and
must abide by their steadfast rules.
By having a technician on staff to perform the day-to-day
routine maintenance, as well as scheduled inspections, operational costs may
be greatly reduced, thus justifying the salary of the maintenance
technician.
In-house maintenance affords the ability to take care of
minor problems with the aircraft before they become a major difficulty that
will cost more money in the long run. The staff technician is able to
preplan for upcoming scheduled maintenance. In doing so, parts can be
ordered ahead of time, helping to assure minimum downtime.
Most technicians employed by the aviation unit work
directly with the unit commander in planning operational budgets for the
fiscal year. They are also normally given the task of networking with the
various vendors, ordering parts and serving as liaison between the FAA and
the aviation unit itself.
Technicians might also be responsible for verifying that
an ample supply of consumable items are kept in stock, as well as spare
components that are known to fail. By keeping these various supplies in
stock, the maintenance technician helps to keep downtime to a minimum and
aircraft availability to a maximum.
The staff technician helps to ease the workload of the
unit personnel by eliminating tasks that would need to be performed if
contract maintenance were utilized. By keeping track of the day-to-day
operations, the technician is able to assess if closer inspections are
required on the various equipment, as well as the aircraft. This helps to
assure reliability, as well as safety of the aircraft itself. Determinations
can thus be made on when aircraft or equipment have met their useful life
limits and need to be replaced or refurbished.
Outsourcing Maintenance
Whether utilizing contract maintenance or having your own technician on
staff, the maintenance of various aircraft components and equipment requires
outsourcing to various vendors for either overhaul or repair. This is where
maintenance management can take a rather ugly turn. Costs can become
insurmountable and can either make or break a budget if not managed
correctly.
The aviation unit that utilizes contract maintenance can
be at the mercy of the vendor that their maintenance facility chooses.
Maintenance warranty issues most likely will have to be dealt with by the
maintenance contractor. This can create delays in returning the aircraft or
equipment to serviceable or airworthy condition. Another factor to take into
consideration is cost for these outsourced items. The contractor will most
likely incur costs, and therefore, these additional costs are passed on in
the form of handling charges.
The staff maintenance technician, on the other hand, is
able to shop for the best facility to perform the work that requires
outsourcing. More expensive items are bid out, and this helps to reduce the
cost of doing business. Bid specifications can be reviewed by the technician
to assure that the best quality of work is being asked for. The staff
technician can then recommend the best shop to perform the work needed and
assure that this work is performed in a timely manner.
When it comes to warranty issues, personnel can assure a
more positive outcome for the good of the unit. The in-house technician is
better versed in the day to day operation of the equipment and problems that
arise. This helps the vendor to better understand the issue and get the job
done on the first attempt.
Managing Maintenance Concerns
Whether choosing to hire a maintenance technician or to contract out your
maintenance needs, the management of your unit’s maintenance can be
overwhelming to a new unit commander that has no prior knowledge of the
aviation world. Normal transition time into this position can be anywhere
from six months to one year, depending on the complexity of the aviation
unit’s needs. Having a maintenance technician on staff greatly reduces the
transition time needed.
The goal of proper maintenance management is to assure
that the aviation unit operates at the utmost efficiency, without
compromising safety.
Editor’s Note: David "Bart" Bartkowiak is the Maintenance Moderator
of ALEA’s website discussion board and a member of ALEA’s Safety
subcommittee. He recently retired after almost 20 years of service with the
City of Warren Police Aviation Unit. Mr. Bartkowiak is currently employed by
CJ Systems Aviation Group as a Base Site Mechanic at Flight For Life in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(Back to top)
Who’s Ultimately Responsible For Airworthiness?
By Keith Johnson
ALEA Safety Program Manager
In an aviation unit, a quality maintenance management
system develops a healthy relationship with maintenance personnel, whether
maintenance is performed within the organization or by an outside vendor.
And developing such a relationship is no small feat, as it can directly
correlate to an organization's ability to eliminate accidents and maintain a
safe, reliable fleet of aircraft.
Pilots and supervisors need to know the airworthiness status of each
aircraft operated by their organization. The ultimate responsibility for
determining the airworthiness of an aircraft prior to flight rests on the
shoulders of the pilot. But, management also has a responsibility to
determine the airworthiness of the aircraft prior to assigning the aircraft
to a mission and must take the necessary steps to ensure that the flight
being planned will not extend beyond the time of the next scheduled
maintenance. This information is documented in the aircraft maintenance
logbook and must remain accessible to aircrews and supervision even if
maintenance is performed at a site other than the location of the aviation
unit.
Many organizations use an aircraft status board to help
track the maintenance status of aircraft. This is an effective management
tool that should contain the following:
-
Aircraft flight status or airworthiness.
-
Current Hobbs time.
-
Hobbs time for the next required maintenance.
-
"N" number of the aircraft.
-
Comments that may alert the pilot to airworthiness
issues.
It has been my experience that all too frequently,
airworthiness related entries of an informal nature, such as a note, are
left in the logbook and/or discrepancy log by both maintenance and flight
personnel. This is generally done to circumvent grounding the aircraft. This
is not acceptable. Informal notes undermine the safety culture of the
organization, create confusion and can result in an aircraft being flown
that is not airworthy.
Pilots, mechanics or other authorized personnel should
document discrepancies in a formal record, frequently referred to as a
"squawk book." Any discrepancy must be addressed and signed off by
authorized personnel prior to the aircraft being flown. Refer to CFR Part
91.405 and Part 43 for details about maintenance requirements.
There should be a separate entry for each discrepancy,
including:
Addressing the discrepancy does not necessarily mean that
the repair has been made.
Consider the following example. During preflight, the pilot determines that
a position light is out and documents the discrepancy in the squawk book.
However, the flight is scheduled for daytime only, and the position light is
not required for daytime operations. Given prior authorization from the FAA
to utilize a minimum equipment list, the pilot should state that FAR 91.209a
only requires position lights from sunset to sunrise and sign his name in
the discrepancy log. He has addressed the discrepancy, and the aircraft is
legal to fly during the daytime, notwithstanding any other electrical
problem associated with the bad position light. The repair must still be
made in a timely manner and signed off by a certified mechanic. In no case
should repairs be delayed beyond the next required inspection.
In any event, it is always essential to document
seemingly minor discrepancies such as burned out position lights. A series
of burned out position lights gone unreported and replaced by different
personnel could fail to identify, for example, a more serious vibration
problem in the drive train that is causing the position lights to fail.
Another maintenance management tool is your Safety
Committee. Having a Safety Committee should be a mandatory element of every
organization and should include a representative from maintenance. When
questions about maintenance issues arise, they can, therefore, be
immediately addressed. This makes them part of your team and promotes a
strong safety culture with your maintainers.
CFR Part 91.407 states that no person may operate any
aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
rebuilding unless the aircraft has been approved to return to service by a
person authorized under Part 43.7. Additionally, all of the maintenance
record entries must have been made. This means all of the paperwork must be
completed before releasing the aircraft for flight.
Part 91.407 further states that an appropriately rated
pilot may be required to conduct an operational flight check. I strongly
recommend that persons assigned to conduct operational flight checks
complete the factory maintenance course for the make and model aircraft
being flown. After all, consider the relative low cost of training compared
to the high cost of a hot-start and engine damage that can occur when
specific run-up procedures are not followed after a fuel controller has been
changed.
Get to know your maintenance inspectors from your local
FAA Flight Standards District Office. They're a great source of information.
Consider inviting them to speak at a training day. Have them conduct
periodic safety inspections and encourage them to conduct unannounced
visits. This sends the message that you want to do the right things, and do
things right.
Remember, safety in flight is directly proportional to
the quality of maintenance performed on your aircraft. And, a pat on the
back is always better than a broken arm. So let your maintainers know you
appreciate their hard work and dedication to safety. Our lives depend on
them.
(Back to top)
Supreme Court of Canada Rules on FLIR Issue
By Mark Colborn
Sr.Cpl./Pilot
Dallas PD Helicopter Unit
The United States Supreme Court surprised the U.S. law
enforcement community in 2001 with a totally unexpected FLIR decision in
U.S. v. Kyllo. Because of that decision, Mounties and municipal officers in
Canada had been collectively holding their breath until October 29 of last
year, when the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario released its decision on
the issue. Luckily, common sense prevailed and won the day for our brothers
in blue, or rather, red, up North!
Our Supreme Court Justices, using the Kyllo case, decided
to nip in the bud all use of future or emerging technologies that could
invade or intrude on the activities of persons in a home, without first
obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court of Canada, however, chose to rule on
the facts of the case before them and ruled no warrant was required to use a
thermal imaging device on a home.
"FLIR technology cannot, in its present state of
development, permit any inferences about the precise activity giving rise to
the heat," the court stated. "Technology must be evaluated according to its
current capability and its evolution in the future dealt with step by step,"
the court furthered.
This is precisely what Chief Justice Rehnquist eloquently
argued during oral arguments in the Kyllo case. "I think in a Fourth
Amendment case, we decide what was actually done, not what something was
capable of doing," Chief Justice Rehnquist stated. In Kyllo, an Agema 210
hand-held thermal imager had been used, a relatively simple,
second-generation thermal imager. The Court acknowledged that the technology
used in the Kyllo case was "relatively crude." Unfortunately, the majority
of the U.S. Supreme Court did not share Justice Rehnquist’s vision of the
scope of their job, and created new Fourth Amendment Law.
The facts in R. v. Walter Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 (the case
heard by the Canadian Supreme Court), are similar to many thermal imaging
cases. The RCMP used an airplane equipped with a Forward Looking Infra-red
(FLIR) camera to observe Tessling’s house in Kingsville, Ontario. The RCMP
was able to obtain a search warrant for Tessling’s home based on the FLIR
observation and that of two informants. Once in the house, RCMP officers
found a large marijuana grow operation and several guns. Tessling attempted
to argue at his trial that the FLIR observation was a violation of his right
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by Section 8
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court disagreed, and Tessling was convicted. The
Court of Appeal for Ontario, however, felt that the court should have
excluded all evidence and acquitted Tessling on all charges. The Court of
Appeal ruled that the use of the FLIR technology to observe Tessling’s home
constituted a search and, since it was done without a warrant, violated his
Section 8 rights.
Her Majesty the Queen (or more specifically the Attorney
General of Canada, Toronto) appealed. The Honorable Justice William Ian
Corneil Binnie (writing for the court) began his analysis of the case using
a precedented approach to Section 8 established by the Court early in its
history, which made privacy the dominant organizing principle in search and
seizure cases.
Justice Binnie summarized an earlier Canadian Supreme
Court decision, which stated that there is a "bewildering array of different
techniques available to the police (either existing or under development),"
and a "catalogue of what is or is not permitted under s. 8 is scarcely
feasible."
Therefore, a 1996 decision by the same court, according
to Justice Binnie, requires the court to consider the "totality of the
circumstances" and place particular emphasis on (1) the existence of a
subjective expectation of privacy and (2) the objective reasonableness of
the expectation.
This approach to the privacy issue is similar to the way
U.S. courts address the privacy issue. Section 8 protects personal privacy,
territorial privacy and informational privacy. Thus, Justice Binnie spent a
great deal of time in his decision analyzing the concept of where the
"reasonableness" line should be drawn in these three tenets. Justice Binnie
made the distinction between informational and territorial privacy,
disagreeing with the Appeal Court that treated the FLIR image as an
equivalent to a search of the home. "I think it is more accurately
characterized as an external search for information about the home which may
or may not be capable of giving rise to an inference about what was actually
going on inside," Justice Binnie said.
Justice Binnie, placing more emphasis on the
informational aspect, focused on the quality of the information that the
FLIR image could actually deliver. The Appeal Court, according to Binnie,
looked more to the "theoretical capacity" of the FLIR technology citing the
prediction stated by the lower court: "[t]he nature of the intrusiveness is
subtle but almost Orwellian in its theoretical capacity." Justice Binnie
stated: "In my view, with respect, the reasonableness line has to be
determined by looking at the information generated by existing FLIR
technology, and then evaluating its impact on a reasonable privacy
interest." He further stated that as FLIR technology evolved or became more
intrusive, then it would be a different case with the privacy issues dealt
with at the time, in light of the facts as they might then exist. Perhaps
this judge was a guest in the gallery during the Kyllo arguments and heard
Justice Rehnquist’s remarks.
Justice Binnie was confused by what Justice Scalia
(writing for the majority in Kyllo) meant by "a device that is not in
general public use." Justice Binnie felt this phrase was "vague" and "takes
in a lot of territory."
Justice Binnie answered his own question, which asked
what was considered the test for "general public use": "In my view, the
issue is not whether FLIR technology puts the police inside the home
(because it does not) or whether FLIR is in general public use (it is not),
but rather the nature and quality of the information about activities in the
home that the police are able to obtain. The evidence is that a FLIR image
of heat emanations is, on its own, ‘meaningless.’ That is the bottom line."
Ruling to allow the appeal and restore the conviction of Tessling, Justice
Binnie stated: "External patterns of heat distribution on the external
surfaces of a house is not information in which the respondent (Tessling)
had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The heat distribution, as stated,
offers no insight into his private life, and reveals nothing of his
‘biological core of personal information.’ Its disclosure scarcely affects
the ‘dignity, integrity and autonomy’ of the person whose house is subject
of the FLIR image."
The Tessling decision reaffirmed an earlier decision by
the Supreme Court of British Columbia released on September 19, 2001. In R.
v. Campbell, Docket #112057T, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the use of a
thermal imager on a home to identify heat emissions was not a search and did
not require a search warrant.
The Honorable Justice Melvin examined the Kyllo decision
in the United States and stated that he was "impressed" with the view of the
minority and preferred their views over that of the majority. Justice Melvin
added, "Of course, as we all know, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States are not binding on this Court."
(Back to top)
|