HOPWOOD: CAPE CENTRAL GOING STRONG DESPITE STIFF FAA PENALTY

CAPE GIRARDEAU -- The owner of Cape Central Airways said Tuesday night the charter airline service has not suffered seriously despite a "heavy handed" penalty last year for violating federal air-safety requirements.

Reggie Hopwood said the Federal Aviation Administration revoked Cape Central's air carrier certificate in August following four flights in an aircraft that had inoperative equipment.

But the certificate was reissued a few days later after Hopwood resigned as operator of the fixed-base air charter company. Hopwood called the FAA violations relatively minor, particularly in light of the stiff penalty.

"We made a mistake, there's no doubt about it," Hopwood said. "While it was a mistake, safety wasn't an issue here.

"Anybody knowledgeable of aviation and familiar with the incident (would agree) the FAA was unprecedented in its severity. They used a sledge-hammer approach that totally shocked everyone."

The incident occurred Aug. 21 when Hopwood and Cape Central pilot Lawrence Rice were preparing to fly a Cape Central aircraft from Lambert Airport in St. Louis to the Cape Girardeau Municipal Airport.

FAA inspectors found inoperative equipment on the aircraft's left wing and told Hopwood and Rice to have the part fixed before flying.

But according to an FAA report on the incident, Rice and Hopwood lubricated the jammed part and flew the aircraft to Cape Girardeau.

They then flew the aircraft to Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland, Ohio. Upon arrival at Cleveland, two FAA inspectors from the Cleveland Flight Standards District Office inspected the plane and found the part still inoperative.

There also was no record of any maintenance performed on the equipment, as required by the FAA.

The Cleveland FAA inspectors also advised Rice and Hopwood that the equipment needed to be repaired for the aircraft to be "airworthy."

But Hopwood and Rice flew the plane with another cargo to Monroe Regional Airport in Monroe, La.

Following a drop-off of cargo in Monroe, they returned to Cape Girardeau where two FAA inspectors from St. Louis met the plane and determined that the part still had not been fixed.

According to the FAA report, Cape Central violated nine FAA regulations by making the three flights. Most of the violations were of the same nature involving flying the aircraft with inoperative equipment.

But Hopwood said the equipment that was inoperative, the aircraft's left-wing trim aileron, did not present a safety hazard. He said none of the flights in question involved passengers and they were "without incident."

Hopwood said the FAA's harsh penalty likely was the result of his "disregard for their authority.

"It is a one-time occasion, carrying of passengers wasn't involved, and it was an uneventful flight," he said. "The bottom line is I disregarded the FAA's authority, and I've been penalized.

"I think, obviously, someone at the FAA has had an axe to grind with me. But it shouldn't reflect badly on the company. It was a mistake on my part, and I'm paying the price."

Hopwood said Cape Central, because it's a small company, doesn't operate with a "minimum equipment list." The list is used by larger airlines and allows them to fly with certain equipment inoperative if the safety of the flight isn't compromised.

He said he elected to make the flights because the aircraft's maintenance manual stated that safety wasn't affected by the inoperative part.

"We as a charter carrier are required to fly with all of our equipment operative," Hopwood said. He said that includes such equipment as lighting for daytime flights.

"Because we weren't carrying passengers, and going on the manual information, I elected to go ahead and take the flight."

Hopwood said the it was a "trivial incident that has snowballed. I took a common-sense approach to the situation. But that does not excuse a violation of the regulations, in spite of the fact that safety wasn't involved."

Cape Girardeau Airport Manager Mark Seesing also said he thought the FAA violations didn't justify revocation of Cape Central's certificate.

"I think it was an offense that was minor in nature and taken to an extreme in the prosecution of it," Seesing said. "I think it has a lot to do with personalities.

"I think Reggie knew he made a mistake and has paid for that. I don't think the company should suffer for that small of a violation that's been blown out of proportion."

Seesing said other air carriers have had injury accidents that have resulted in less severe penalties than Cape Central's.

"I think an example has been made," he added. "But they're still in operation and still a very good company."

Seesing added: "In 40 years of Cape Central Airways being in business, they've had no losses. There's not a lot of carriers out there that can say that."

Hopwood said he doesn't think the incident will hurt Cape Central's business.

"We're ready to go forward," he said. "It's too good a company to let something like this drag it down.

"Historically, this is the first violation I've ever had in my career. That's 9,000 miles of flying people safely without an accident.

"We've been operating normally since Oct. 15 without any problems and don't look to have any. This was a one-time violation and we've all learned from it."