Originally Posted by
155mm
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.