SPIA’s problems chronicled

The multiple problems of George Wray’s South Pacific Island Airways in Washing ton, in the South Pacific and over Norway have been spelled out to the US Congress.

A report recently released by Congress’s investigative arm, is, in effect, a diary of SPIA’s relations with the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the US coiirts.

The General Accounting Office report starts with a spot check of SPIA maintenance work in Honolulu on August 10 and 11, 1983 in which unspeci fied problems were said to have been discovered.

From there on it was mostly downhill for SPIA.

The report continues, cover ing a variety of mechanical, organisational and airborne problems, until May 29 last year when the FAA effectively grounded most of SPIA’s fleet for lack of “good faith effort” to comply with FAA regulations covering anti-noise “hush kits”

South Pacific Island Airways (SPIA) had a turbulent time after a brave attempt to cater for and encourage inter-island air travel. A new report from Washing ton’s watchdog group The General Accounting Office, chronicles SPIA’s troubles. PlM’s Washington cor respondent DAVID S. NORTH reports.

noted (PIM, September 1985) as costing up to US$2 million per plane.

SPIA’s woes in between these two dates included: • Numerous FAA inspec tions in Hawaii, Guam and American Samoa, usually resul ting in renewed FAA demands for better safety compliance. • Four FAA-criticised flights over the North Pole (from Alas ka to Amsterdam) carrying Un ited Nations peace keeping troops including one flight in which the SPIA pilot was warned by the Royal Norwe gian Air Force that he was heading (with a contingent of Fijian troops) for Soviet air space only 50 miles distant.

• A crash, on July 21, 1984, in American Samoa in which one person died. According to the GAO, “An FAA investigator determines that the accident was caused by a break in a rusty elevator cable”. • An October 12, 1984 FAA emergency order revoking the carrier’s operating certificate.

SPIA lost a subsequent US court battle later that same month, and then tried to file as a brand new carrier.

That approach was thwarted as the FAA found that SPIA’s president “made false state ments to the FAA concerning the Boeing 707 engine reliabil ity program and deliberately tried to mislead the agency.”

The GAO summary does not mention the SFIA bankruptcy petition (PIM September, 1985).

However, the objective of the GAO investigation into FAA SPIA relations has relatively little to do with airline safety.

GOA examined SPIA’s list of troubles as well as those of a small California airline, Flight Trails, out of its concern for the supervision of military charters following the 1985 holiday sea son crash in Canada of a plane carrying US troops returning home from the UN Sinai force.

The GAO found a major problem here but reported it in its usual understated way: “Our review of FAA docu ments did not disclose any evidence of communication be tween FAA and the military aircraft command.”

The report did not invite SPIA’s comments, though a later, final GAO report will include its own analysis as well as comments from the airlines and the FAA.