Notices
Hiring News Latest news and rumors

AMRG

Old 08-28-2016, 10:54 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
155mm's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
It really is the same company. While others earlier in this thread were quick to try to discredit my comments, a year ago, it seems that nothing has changed, as a number of other posters have clearly demonstrated.

Yes, they were operating with spars cracked completely through in three places, landing gear so loose it could be moved around by hand while locked down and on jacks, missing gear doors, no nurse or even defibrilator with heart patients on board, and suicide patients placed in the passenger seat next to the pilot. Same personnel, same family that has been heard to tell a pilot "I don't care if you return or make it, I just need to show you having launched for dispatch reliability." Same owner that once told a pilot "Consider this your education. By all rights I shouldn't be paying you. You should be paying me."

If someone wants to go work for an operation like that, and people like that, by all means, cut your own throat and throw your hat in the ring. Never look back and say you weren't warned.

If you defend an outfit like that or deny it, you're a bald faced liar. There's no other way to put it.
Did you work for Scenic, Suntime or AMRG? I did, about 30 years ago and never heard anyone talk as bitterly as you! It was a flying job to build flight time and move on! What else is new?
155mm is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 12:10 PM
  #22  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
Default

That's called the truth, not bitterness. No, I don't work there.

Personal observations, and frankly, just the tip of the ice berg.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 01:20 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
155mm's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
That's called the truth, not bitterness. No, I don't work there.

Personal observations, and frankly, just the tip of the ice berg.
I respectfully disagree! Your version of the "truth" is as you say, based on "personal observation" and comments from other posters. That is the exact definition of hearsay: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."

I don't know how it is to fly there today but it my opinion, it was some of the funnest flying I've ever done! Lake Powell, Monument Valley, Grand Canyon, Air Ambulance, Zion's Park, etc. No more or less mechanical issues than any other company I've worked for. I was never bullied to take flights. The pay sucked but I was single, young and dumb trying to build flight time and get on with a commuter.

I will say today, pilots are not a "dime a dozen" as they were recently in aviation history and corporations need to be competitive with salary, benefits and so forth to attract good pilots, mechanics and medics. Those problems should fix themselves quickly or the company simply won't survive without good people!

Last edited by 155mm; 08-28-2016 at 01:40 PM.
155mm is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 03:06 PM
  #24  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
Default

Originally Posted by 155mm View Post
I respectfully disagree! Your version of the "truth" is as you say, based on "personal observation" and comments from other posters. That is the exact definition of hearsay: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
I base nothing I've said on the statements of others, or on hearsay, but on personal observation; only that which I've personally seen and heard directly, and nothing third party. I saw the things I identified, and I heard the statements that I identified, spoken by company personnel, ownership, and management. Nothing second hand, no guesswork, and absolutely true and correct.

If you worked for AMRG and saw none of those things, you had blinders on.

Pilots are still a dime a dozen, especially inexperienced ones. Little has changed there.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 03:43 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
155mm's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
I base nothing I've said on the statements of others, or on hearsay, but on personal observation; only that which I've personally seen and heard directly, and nothing third party.
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
It really is the same company. While others earlier in this thread were quick to try to discredit my comments, a year ago, it seems that nothing has changed, as a number of other posters have clearly demonstrated.
"other posters have clearly demonstrated"

1. You never worked there.
2. You have "personal observations".
3. You have factored in "other posters" comments.

Sounds like "hearsay" to me! The aviation industry is filled with gossip, hearsay and rumors! What else is new? In any case, your posts sound more like a personal gripe than an objective statement!
155mm is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 07:07 PM
  #26  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
Default

Hearsay? Other posters stated their personal experiences here, one after another. Their personal experiences are hearsay, first hand accounts? No.

My own first hand accounts? Not hearsay. Personal observations are not hearsay. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word. If someone observes it first hand, hears it in person, it's not hearsay. It's a witness. Do you understand the difference? Clearly not.

Yours experience? Who knows.

Again, if someone's stupid enough to go work there, let them. They've been warned.

Your experiences, if indeed an enjoyable shangrila of ancient inexperience and as delightful as you portray, are also irrelevant for one seeking employment with this certificate holder today.

I didn't say I never worked there. You said that. Speak for yourself, should you think yourself capable, rather than attempting to do so for others.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 07:26 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
155mm's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Default News Flash!

First of all. you just said in a previous post that you don't work there! Ohhh I get it, you don't work there now. Anyway,
News Flash!

"I. Findings of Fact
1. Eagle Air Med Corporation ("Eagle") is engaged in the business of providing air ambulance services in the Four Corners Area of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, Ninety-nine percent of Eagle's services are provided to Indian Health Services ("IHS").
2. Scenic Aviation, Inc. is a separate corporate entity from Eagle, and is not a party to this action.
3. Although Scenic and Eagle may work together to provide air ambulance services, the two companies retain separate identities."

https://casetext.com/case/eagle-air-...-med-trans-sys

Scenic Aviation and AMRG DBA Eagle are not the same company according to a Utah district judge so this conversation is mixing apples and oranges! 30 years ago was a long time ago and I only have good memories of Scenic! Sorry your experiences were so ummmm. traumatic.

Last edited by 155mm; 08-28-2016 at 07:43 PM.
155mm is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 08:04 PM
  #28  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
Default

Originally Posted by 155mm View Post
First of all. you just said in a previous post that you don't work there! Ohhh I get it, you don't work there now. Anyway,
News Flash!

"I. Findings of Fact
1. Eagle Air Med Corporation ("Eagle") is engaged in the business of providing air ambulance services in the Four Corners Area of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, Ninety-nine percent of Eagle's services are provided to Indian Health Services ("IHS").
2. Scenic Aviation, Inc. is a separate corporate entity from Eagle, and is not a party to this action.
3. Although Scenic and Eagle may work together to provide air ambulance services, the two companies retain separate identities."

https://casetext.com/case/eagle-air-...-med-trans-sys

Scenic Aviation and AMRG DBA Eagle are not the same company according to a Utah district judge so you are mixing apples and oranges! Anyway, 30 years ago was a long time ago and I only have good memories of Scenic! Sorry your experiences were so ummmm. traumatic?
Again, quite irrelevant. Don't dismiss their bad practices, their poor maintenance, their ****ty attitudes and abuse of employees, their heavy handed efforts to push aircraft and crews in unsafe conditions or to question the judgement of pilots, or outright statements that they don't care if the aircraft or crew make it or survive, so long as they can show dispatch reliability; don't dismiss these things by trying to show a legal technicality about the separation of names and store fronts. They're the same people, the same ownership, the same management personnel, the same ethics, the same ideals, the same common histories, and the same actions. They can rebrand themselves a dozen times, and they've made efforts, but the leopard(s) have not changed their spots. Not in the least.

Did you bother to read the judgement against Eagle that you linked? Whether or not Scenic (doing business as) Eagle are two separate companies or not is purely an issue of whether or not Scenic got stuck with the bill; the same principles, same personnel, same family, same ownership, same building, same aircraft, same maintenance, same facilities, etc...just one company doing business as another; these become the important issues for anyone going to work. That a court referred to them as "separate" in a law suit in which Eagle lost, is really quite irrelevant. One going to work for them would be going to work for Scenic, the Hunts, and the rest of their organization. One would certainly be subject to the same abuses.

Did you bother to read the judgement? It's a damning indictment on Eagle (and it's parent company), which really applies to AMRG, as it's run by the same people. Eagle maintained in it's literature for the years described in the law suit that it was CAMTS accredited, when it wasn't. The legal document that you linked did a good job of covering a number of crashes and aircraft accidents and mishaps that Eagle lied about and misrepresented, tried to hide or cover up, as well as numerous other lies and falsehoods. It's interesting that Eagle brought the suit and it so clearly painted them in a bad light.

What's salient about your link, and I'll include again in case you remove it so that others can read it, is that the people who ran Eagle at the time continue to run AMRG today, and own Scenic...same people, same operations, just a bigger scope today. Nothing changes with these people. You claim nothing was wrong 30 years ago. The events in the law suit occurred 20 years ago and more recently, and are very damning. Did they suddenly start performing bad maintenance after you left, suddenly start crashing numerous airplanes after you left, suddenly begin making numerous gear up landings after you left, lying about maintenance, hiding crashes, withholding evidence, filing false reports, etc...all after you left? The company suddenly went south, turned bad, from the shangrila that it was when you were there?

Really? Anybody believe that? I certainly don't. The link that YOU provided doesn't.

Your'e one of them, perhaps? If so, shame on you for the deception. If not, shame on you for the deception in suggesting that they're anything other than they are. Anyone with a mind can tell otherwise.

You've discredited yourself. Well done.

https://casetext.com/case/eagle-air-...-med-trans-sys

11. It is undisputed that Eagle falsified information presented on the PIF. CAMTS is not required to accept Eagle's explanation that its falsification was inadvertent. The evidence before CAMTS at the time of the decision to withdraw accreditation from Eagle was that Eagle had failed to include numerous events that were clearly incidents or accidents under the definitions that Eagle had provided as part of the PIF. The subsequent report of Randy Corbin gives voice to the reasonable conclusion of the members of C AMIS Executive Board, "How a company forgets to include a wheels up landing that resulted in the aircraft being out of service for approximately 18 months is beyond me." CAMTS' conclusion that this omission, and the omission of another gear up landing, and the omission of an accident involving a crash into a horse on the runway, were deliberate, was a reasonable conclusion.
58. CAMIS' conclusion that Eagle intentionally misrepresented on the PIF the number of incidents and accidents in which it had been involved was based on the following factors:
a. Eagle's airplane N47744 hit a horse on the runway on 1/29/98. Hitting a horse on the runway is an aircraft accident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Eagle did not report this accident on its PIF.
b. The nose gear of Eagle's airplane N6935C collapsed on landing on 8/13/98. Although this was reported to the NTSB and is an aircraft accident it was not reported on the PIF.
c. Eagle's airplane N 5943M suffered a dual engine failure on 7/1/99 that was reported in the PIF as fuel contamination but found by the NTSB to be the result of the pilot failing to check to make sure that there was enough fuel in the tanks. Dual engine failure is an aircraft accident or incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Eagle did not report this accident/incident on the PIF.
d. The nose gear of Eagle's airplane N2655B collapsed on landing on 8/13/98. A gear collapse is an aircraft accident or incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Eagle did not report this accident/incident on the PIF.
e. Eagle's airplane N911EA landed with its gear up in July 2000 and again in September of 2000. A gear up landing is an aircraft accident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Nevertheless, neither of these crashes were reported on the PIF.
f. Eagle's airplane N4119M's engine failed in flight as a result of a maintenance issue. This was noted to be an incident by the FAA but was not reported to C AMIS on the PIF
g. In April of 2001 Eagle's airplane N344ND had a propeller strike on landing. A propeller strike is an aircraft incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF but Eagle failed to report this event on its PIF
h. On 3/13/02, while CAMTS site surveyors were at Eagle, Eagle's airplane N4119M had an engine failure and was diverted to Winslow, Arizona, This is an incident by any reasonable definition including Eagle's own definition and was not only left off the PIF but kept from the site surveyors who were present at the time
i. In August of 2002 Eagle's airplane N1083S had a propeller strike on landing. A propeller strike is an aircraft incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF but Eagle failed to report this event to CAMTS
j. The members of CAMTS Executive Board of Directors did not believe that Eagle simply forgot to report such obvious and serious aircraft accidents. Rather, they concluded that it was impossible for Eagle to have forgotten two gear up landings as well as the other incidents and accidents.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 09:52 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
155mm's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
You've discredited yourself. Well done.

https://casetext.com/case/eagle-air-...-med-trans-sys
Certainly won't lose a wink of sleep over it! It's a different company! You are confusing the facts with the organization of today with the one of 30 years ago that I flew for when this new CEO was in diapers. Go ahead and discourage people from going there...I don't give a rats a$$!
155mm is offline  
Old 08-28-2016, 10:39 PM
  #30  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
Default

Originally Posted by 155mm View Post
Certainly won't lose a wink of sleep over it! It's a different company! You are confusing the facts with the organization of today with the one of 30 years ago that I flew for when this new CEO was in diapers. Go ahead and discourage people from going there...I don't give a rats a$$!
It's the same company. The legal paper you cited merely said that they're different corporate entities. It's a shell game, different names, but the same players. Same people, same owners, same principles. The same people that lie, cheat, and steal in one company do it in the others. As you managed to try to avoid pointing out, but did with your link, they were denied accreditation for falsifying reports, withholding information, lying, misrepresenting, and failing to meet criteria for CAMTS, the most basic certification for any air ambulance operation. They were barred from their bread and butter operation, BIA contracts, and have resorted to buying up numerous certificates and names to expand and hide their names. They opened up a new office in the same state, but still run by the same people.

Again, a leopard does not change its spots.

Joe may have been in diapers when you worked for his daddy, who did everything then that Joe does now. He learned from his father, grew up with the company, and has been pulling the same stuff for many years.

YOU introduced the link and the paper, quoted above, which includes numerous references to incidents during a particular period of time, but those are just a sliver of the total number of incidents with which the various company faces and names are associated. It's absolutely a shell game, an attempt to bolster credibility from an organization that has had numerous medical personnel call them on the carpet, and an attempt to hide the past.

You've lied here about the company, and outright lied about the statements made in this thread. You've tried to call statements by eyewitnesses "hearsay," and have even tried to twist the definition of the word. Any semblance of credibility you might have hoped to hold up has been shot, and any further effort addressing your comments would be a waste. It's for those reasons and more that you'll go on the ignore list. I won't waste further time on you.

Originally Posted by 155mm View Post
This message is hidden because 155mm is on your ignore list.
The signal to noise ration has improved a thousand fold already.
JohnBurke is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices