Airline's safety worried the FAA

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

But interviews with former Gulfstream pilots and the internal FAA investigation — both of which the company rejects — suggest a troubled safety record.

"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 midair collisions was not working, Mr. Edwards said, and when he refused to fly the plane, he was fired.

He is suing the company in Broward County, Fla., near the company's Fort Lauderdale headquarters, on whistle-blower law violations and defamation.

Mr. Edwards filed a whistle-blower 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, also is suing the company in Broward County, alleging a violation of whistle-blower 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, he said.

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

David Hackett, Gulfstream's president and chief executive officer, said in an e-mail Tuesday 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 Mr. Hart was fired because of a personal issue he had with another pilot.

It wasn't until Mr. Edwards's whistle-blower 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 blow 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 aircraft 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 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.

"Anytime an airline can't show proper record-keeping, it's a safety issue," Alison J. Duquette said. "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 on the claims. Gulfstream must pay $550,000 over the next five years as part of the agreement. Mr. Hackett said his company had wanted to fight the allegations, but could not afford to spend time in a lengthy legal battle.

In an e-mail Tuesday evening, Mr. Hackett said the FAA inspector who recommended revocation of the airline's 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 public are maintained."

In their presentations to north country officials, Mr. Hackett and other company officials said 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. DOT will not allow a company to bid for service if it is unsafe or if it has financial problems.

Mr. Gray 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 said they believe the money will help Gulfstream navigate its current financial turbulence.

The Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority endorsed the incumbent Cape Air, Hyannis, Mass., 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 DOT is expected in the coming days.