Counter by Rapid Axcess
Prior to the court action, Mr. Corbett had sent his written objections to the management of Airways Aeros Association, the only positive reaction was for the Director/General Manager, Mr. David Lewry to notify him that his aircraft would be disabled and a sevenfold increase in airfield parking charge imposed. Legal action commenced soon afterwards.
During the court action at Reading County Court before Judge Nigel Hague QC, Mr. Corbett pointed out a number of discrepancies between aircraft log books and engineers` worksheets compiled by chief engineer Mr. Alan Wintle, whose qualifications cover all aircraft up to Boeing 747. From documents produced to the court, Mr. Corbett was unable to deduce whether parts claimed to have been needed were in fact needed, or had even been fitted.
Judge Hague acknowledged the discrepancies pointed out by Mr. Corbett but rejected them, stating, "it does not matter one way or another". The judge also incorrectly interpreted accepted aviation terminology to the extent of making positive remarks contrary to the correct procedures.
The judge`s remarks were in conflict with requirements of the Air Navigation Order, which is the specialised branch of the British Legal System, being backed by Parliamentary Statute.
Subsequent to the court action, the chairman of Airways Aero Association, Captain Jock Lowe, who is also British Airways Director of Flight Operations, carried out an investigation and agreed that "engineers had used incorrect terminology and/or grammar on worksheets".
Mr. Corbett also notified the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the events uncovered by the court action. The CAA agreed with Mr. Corbett`s correct interpretation of the documentation as opposed to the judge`s pontification.
Despite agreeing that the discrepancies by the British Airways Company were of a prosecutable nature, the CAA took no action against them. They also refused Mr. Corbett`s request for support in his attempt to raise an appeal through the legal system, by inducing delays and avoidance of investigation.
It is a requirement under the Air Navigation Order for the chief executive of an approved maintenance organisation to be responsible for the correct compliance with statutory requirements. Despite the matter running for over two years, correspondence from the chief executive as recent as January 1997 continues to ignore why the statutory requirements were contravened.
It appears that the judiciary has unwittingly given approval for statutory safety laws to be flouted. The vagaries of the British legal system are no way of deciding air safety matters. All persons qualified in aviation, including pilots, engineers, administrators, etc., are required to have an intensive knowledge of the aviation statutory law, and if properly adhered to by all concerned, the system can be self regulating. The civil judicial criteria of "balance of probability" implies that airworthiness is now to be decided by a percentage majority. Due to their disregard of their obligations under the Air Navigation Order and premature court action, the British Airways subsidiary's contraventions remain on record.
Mr. Corbett comments; "Despite their apparent success against me, the
actual court records confirm my position in continuing to reject my aircraft
as unairworthy. I have never been in possession of any goods or services
from Airways Aeros Association, yet they appear to have abused their position
by incorrect procedures for undeserved financial gain."
Judge Hague said, incorrectly,
"Kit previously fitted does not mean previously to the plane coming
into Mr. Wintle`s hands, it means previous to the inspections which he
was concerned with."
Mr. Corbett comments, "The judge`s odd statement seems to mean that
during a necessarily prolonged maintenance period, any item attended to
on a certain day but not entered on the records until the next day must
be described as "previously complied with".
Mr. R.D. Gordon, of the Civil Aviation Authority Chief Surveyors Office,
confirms Mr. Corbett`s correct interpretation,
"In the authority's opinion in the context of inspecting an aircraft
to establish compliance with some known aspect, the statement `previously
fitted` or `previously complied with` would mean the particular aspect
had been embodied at some previous time to that of the current inspection."
Article 16(4) states, "It shall be the duty of the operator of every aircraft in respect of which log books are required to keep them in accordance with the foregoing."
CAA leaflet, `Maintenance complaints of the CAA`, clarifies the pilot/operators responsibilities under article 16 as being limited to ensuring maintenance records are kept available particularly where they extend beyond the log book in the form of additional information on worksheets, etc.
CAA Deputy Chief Surveyor, Mr. D.G. Hayward confirms, "Articles 16(3) and (4) remain in force, and both engineers and pilots are obliged to comply with provisions."
If aircraft log books and worksheets conflict, this can only be the responsibility of the engineer - the pilot/operator has no power to create maintenance records.
The engineer also admitted he had `not fully read the book` when asked by Mr. Corbett why he had renewed the exhaust system and not carried out a simple welding repair as he had originally promised.
Mr. R.D. Gordon, Chief Surveyors Office, comments, "actions constituted
a defect and repair and should have been recorded on the applicable work/defect
sheets associated with maintenance being undertaken at that time. Additionally
an appropriate entry should have been made in the relevant aircraft log
book as required by Article 16 and Schedule 6 to the Air Navigation Order
1989."
"As this has not in fact been recorded in your log book, we would encourage
you to obtain such an entry in order to ensure that the maintenance history
of aircraft is complete."
* * * * *
In spite of the contraventions of aviation law being already acknowledged by various departments of the CAA, the requested investigation blatantly avoided the issue.
* * * * *
Mr. D.G. Hayward, CAA Deputy Chief Surveyor, reported, "The audit was in respect of company approval and not of your individual aircraft.............if they were in contravention it was the day the act took place.....articles 16(3) and 16(4) are protected by the six months rule by virtue of Section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980,.....any such contravention is now time barred."
Mr. Corbett comments, "Mr. Hayward`s remarks seem to imply that any illegal maintenance documentation automatically becomes legal without correction after 24 hours, despite the fact that the certification associated with it can be valid for three years, and even the remaining life of the aircraft, as in the case of my aircraft. I am sure this will come as a great surprise to both pilots and engineers, particularly those who have been censured or prosecuted for documentary offences."
* * * * *
The fact that the maintenance was overseen by Mr. Peter Noad, one of the CAA`s own engineering surveyors, may be the reason for Mr. Corbett not receiving unbiased attention from the CAA. Mr. Corbett comments " I was an approved Ministry of Transport motor vehicle tester for 29 years and even a minor clerical error on a test certificate would render a vehicle illegal on the road. However the British Airways subsidiary has not only received approval from the CAA for the hotchpotch documentation presented with my aircraft but they also condone the severe intimidation to fly it in that condition." Mr. Corbett added, " Mr. Wintle Chief Engineer of the British Airways subsidiary claimed his qualifications were obtained at the Brunel College. I find this odd, college trained engineers may sometimes lack practical skills but usually have an almost paranoid approach to correct documentation".
* * * * *
The final communication from the chairman of the CAA confirms Mr. Corbett`s responsibility to ensure the documentation is correct, but then implies that he is also responsible for production of the faulty documentation. Faulty documentation can only originate from the engineer.