US. The Forest Service airtanker scandal involves a scheme, called the Historical Aircraft Exchange Program, where the agency will acquire US retired C-130A aircraft carriers and a US Navy P-3 submarine patrol aircraft, as if to be used as a firefighter fires, but which ends with the ownership of the aircraft being illegally transferred to private companies and the aircraft itself is used for other purposes or even sold for profit. The controversy resulted in two of the perpetrators involved being sentenced to imprisonment and a number of civil suits.
Video U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal
​​â € <â €
The USFS has traditionally relied on contracts with private companies to provide large airtankers to combat forest fires, most of which have retired World War II and transport the Korean War era, bombers, and maritime patrol aircraft. Such aircraft are relatively inexpensive to obtain and can carry large loads of fire retardants needed to make their use effective. In the 1980s, most of the airtanker fleet consisted of C-119 Flying Boxcars that had been obtained from the military. After security concerns, the aging C-119 was grounded in 1987. Because the available airtanker fleet was substantially reduced, the Forest Service needed to obtain additional aircraft for fire operations.
Maps U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal
Exchange scheme
In December 1987, the director of Fire and Flight Management for USFS instructed Fred Fuchs, Deputy Director of Fire and Aviation, to request the Department of Defense to work with civilian contractors in a plan to get a surplus of military transport aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson , Arizona, which can be converted to airtankers. In addition to replacing the grounded C-119, the program is intended to modernize the fleet of tankers to all-turbine aircraft.
At the time, Roy D. Reagan was a private aircraft broker representing the Hemet Valley Fly Service, one of the Forest Service contractors, and C-119 operators. At a meeting on 23 December 1987, attended by Fuchs and Reagan, the Air Force was presented with the idea of ​​moving the retired US Air Force C-130As to the National Museum of the United States Air Force, which would then exchange the C-1301 with C-119 which was planted by the Hemet Valley, because the latter plane could be considered a "historic" aircraft. However, at the next meeting with representatives of the Air Force Museum, Air Force officials reacted negatively to the idea of ​​the exchange.
Fuchs and Reagan then met with representatives of the General Services Administration (GSA) who suggested that the exchange be done without going through the Air Force Museum, rather than the Forest Service being directly involved. In this version of the plan, the Air Force will declare that the aircraft is "excess property" and transfer it to the GSA, which may then legally provide the aircraft to other government agencies, but provided that any agency that receives them will become necessary to retain ownership. The plan was approved, and Fuchs was given the responsibility to coordinate the exchange program for the Forest Service. However, he did not discuss the plan with the Forest Service Legal Advisory Office. The letter certifying the program on behalf of the Forest Service stated that the letter fulfills various provisions of federal regulations, when in reality it is not. In addition, Fuchs provides sales billing to the contractor, transferring the actual ownership of the aircraft to the company, violates the applicable rules, as well as the terms set by the GSA. Furthermore, Fuchs told USFS superiors that the transfer of ownership was approved by the GSA when in fact it was not. In subsequent criminal trials, three Air Force generals testified that they were unaware that the government would lose the aircraft's property; if they have, they say, they will not approve the program.
Initially, four airtanker operators were represented by Reagan and participated in the exchange program: the Hemet Valley Airport Service, Aero Union, TBM, Inc., and Hawkins and Powers. Since only a select number of contractors were provided by the aircraft, and since the program was not published, neither contracts nor aircraft were prepared for bids, allegations of favoritism were followed.
T & amp; G Aviation of Chandler, Arizona became aware of this program from one of its competitors (T & G operated eight Douglas DC-7 at the time). Concerned that this gives its rivals an unfair advantage in securing the Fire Department's Dinas fire contract, T & amp; G contacted Fuchs, who told them that no more planes were available. The company then contacted several congressmen for assistance, and eventually received three C-130s. Instead, T & amp; G provides DC-7B for Pima Air & amp; Space Museum, a SNB-5 for Planes of Fame and UH-19B to the Milestones of Flight museum at Fox Field.
The aircraft, eventually 22 C-130As and six P-3s, were eventually distributed to six contractors. Twelve of the C-130s came from the "ready-to-spare national air fleet" stored at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, and 16 have retired from Air Force Reserve units and were shipped to Pinal Airpark in Marana, Arizona, where they are processed and transferred through an exchange program. As part of the deal, since Reagan acts as a broker on behalf of the company, he is paid commission by them in the form of ownership of four of the C-130As, which are then sold for personal gain. The contractor pays nothing for the plane, but agrees to convert and install fire-fighting equipment at his own expense. The operators must then submit a competitive bid for a contract at a low enough price to be awarded a year-long contract for a fire fighting mission.
Investigations and allegations
USDA and Forest Services
In 1989, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA, Department of Forestry's parent department) began looking at the exchange program, which quietly ended in January 1990, after the USDA Assistant General Assistant concluded that the USFS had no authority to undertake the program.
In 1993, Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson testified before a parliamentary subcommittee, stating, "This has been poorly managed by the Forest Service." Fuchs was demoted at the Forest Service, and retired in 1996.
Gary Eitel
Gary Eitel, a pilot, aviation consultant, and aircraft broker, learned about the program and contacted the Forest Service in 1991 to try to get the C-130 for his client, which was not included in the initial agreement. He was told by the agency that no more aircraft were available, and only three aircraft were involved. Suspecting that he was not told the truth, Eitel began his own investigation, obtaining documentation about the program through the Freedom of Information Act. Eitel took on the role of a whistleblower, and reported his findings in testimony before several audiences of the congressional subcommittee.
Other federal investigations
As a result of Eitel's private investigation, he filed several "hotline" complaints to the USDA and the Office of the US Inspector General (OIG), leading to the initiation of a number of investigations. In 1992, OIG determined that the USFS had no authority to make aircraft exchanges.
The federal auditor determined that most of the C-130 given to contractors were not used for firefighters, and that C-119 traded was essentially "junk". Between ten and eleven (depending on the source) the C-130 was never even converted into an airtanker. Deputy Minister of Agriculture Jim Lyons told Los Angeles Times that some agency actions "are clearly illegal" and "may have been criminal."
On March 3, 1994, the Defense Department's inspector general's assistant for criminal investigation and supervision policy requested the Department of Justice (DoJ) to investigate the Forest Service and its programs. In 1995, GSA auditors determined that the US had lost money on the deal, based on the plane's value comparison.
In addition to the investigation of this agency, several congressional hearings were held to discover the facts of the convoluted program. According to one newspaper, there were "nine years of inquiry involving more than half a dozen federal agencies, at least three congressional inquiries, worked by more than two dozen lawyers earning millions of dollars in fees and at least 12 state and federal courts."
Value
Many allegations relate to the value of both classic airtank being retired, and that the excess military aircraft is given to the contractor. According to an investigation by the Los Angeles Times, some of the traded aircraft have no historical significance and, because of their age, are only worth a memo, only $ 10,000 per plane. The Forest Service argues, though, that 28 of the trade ends at museums throughout the country.
On the other side of the deal, surplus aircraft are also rewarded with scrap prices by the Forest Service for exchange purposes, as little as $ 15,000 each. The Forest Service then gives the value of each aircraft between $ 750,000 and $ 1.5 million. The Inspector-General, however, reported in 1992 that the plane was actually worth about $ 2.4 million each, with the price tag generated at $ 67 million for aircraft granted to contractors. The Forest Service argued that if the aircraft were actually sold to the contractor for its full value, US taxpayers would eventually pay bills in terms of higher cost of airtanker contracts. The contractor pays the conversion fee, about $ 500,000 per aircraft, and after they receive the plane, they find that the program has no provision for providing spare parts to keep the fleet flying, and some of the excess of transportation has expensive turbines. machines that have reached their limits, and are therefore worthless and should be replaced.
Disadvantages of firefighters
One aspect that some investigations brought forward is the impact on firefighting efforts. Investigations against the South Canyon fires in July 1994 in Colorado, which killed 14 firefighters, concluded that "Air support is inadequate for implementing strategies and tactics." Eitel has alleged that the reason for inadequate air support is that aircraft from exchange programs that should be available to firefighters instead do jobs that are not related to fires, some of which are kept secret, worldwide.
Grand jury
As a result of the DoJ investigation, six years after the termination of exchange program by the USDA, the jury charged Fuchs and Reagan, each with one conspiracy charge and one US property conversion calculation to another use. In addition to the actual amount of the two are required, the grand jury sets out ten acts of unlawful or improper conduct by both defendants, including:
- Misrepresents Reagan's job status (implying that he is a representative of the Forest Service) to the US and Navy Air Force
- Misleading the way in which a government-owned aircraft will be provided to private operators
- Fuchs receives flight times and upgraded results to his private pilot license on the reduced aircraft
- Fuchs changed one of the exchange agreements, adding the serial number of the already delivered aircraft.
Congress Solutions
In 1996, Congress passed the Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Act, which authorized DoD to sell the surplus of military aircraft to air the contractor.
Criminal case
After trials in the US District Court in Tucson, Arizona which lasted five weeks, both were convicted in 1997 on conspiracy charges, but found "not guilty" on the alleged conversion. Fuchs was sentenced to 2 years in prison, while Reagan was sentenced to 2½ years, with both also receiving an additional three years probation. No fine is levied. People began serving their sentences on May 4, 1998.
Both appealed their punishment, though, in an unusual move for such a case, their prison sentence did not remain pending an appeal. In July 2000, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, in a 2 to 1 decision, overturned the verdict on the grounds that the trial jury had originally been instructed incorrectly about the possible implications of the statute of limitations on some conspiracy related activities. With the reversal, the two defendants were released from prison, after serving 20 months. The federal prosecutor chose not to try both.
Civil case
Repeat owners settings
Finally, the Dinas Kehutanan contractor officer determined that the exchange was illegal, and on December 1, 1998, the Forest Service declared the ownership of the aircraft and decided that the plane should be returned. "The original exchange agreement for airplane transfers was canceled because we did not have the authority to exchange.I've worked to resolve concerns about the air tanker program raised in the OIG audit and issued the letter confirming plane ownership in the Agency's name," said Ron Hooper, assistant staff to the Head of the Forest Service for Business Operations, the contracting officer who makes the determination of ownership, and who will subsequently testify about it in court. In a letter sent to the operator, the Forest Service also said that they were ready to return the title of the historic aircraft later in the museum, many of which are no longer flyable. The airtanker operator sued and eventually won against this ruling. The affirmation of the ownership of the decision allows for the continued operation of eleven aircraft scheduled to be used under the 1999 National Tanker Air Contract (the other five operable aircraft are in the possession of a company that is unsuccessful in their bid for the contract, or simply chooses not to bid, USFS states, must be maintained and used only for the purpose of firefighting).
In response, some companies filed a lawsuit to prevent this. Years of legal disputes occurred, until March 2007 when the matter was finally tried at the US Federal Claims Court, which decided to International Air Response, a replacement for T & amp; G Aviation. The Government has requested a third return of C-130A provided for T & amp; G or a payment of US $ 2.4 million plus interest, and the court cancels this request under existing law (40 USC 544) stating that if Sales Invoice is provided, it is proof that the transaction meets all regulatory requirements. Thus ruling, the court ruled that although the transaction was illegal from the standpoint of the Forest Service, buyers could not be held accountable for the inappropriate activity of the agency.
Similarly, Pacific Harbor Capital received a summary appraisal of the ownership of two C-130As, because the sales bills that can be traced back to issued by Fuchs have been executed. While it is illegal for the USFS to issue such bills, the court ruled that the act did not cancel the purchase in good faith by the contractor.
Eitel qui tam
In 1994, Gary Eitel filed a civil suit on behalf of the federal government against Reagan, six airtanker operators, and a number of other accused, allegedly fraud and enrichment of unfair enrichment through an exchange program. Due to federal law, Fuchs is immune from his name in a civil suit. Initially, the US government refused to join the lawsuit. In the qui tam setting, private citizens may file a suit on behalf of and as an agent for the US Government against an entity accused of rigging the government. While the plaintiff had to pay the legal costs of his own pocket (in 1998 Eitel estimated that the lawsuit had cost him $ 3 million), he was entitled to receive 15% to 30% of the government's reimbursed money if he won in court. Penalty potential is estimated at US $ 500 million. Among the problems filed in court by the lawsuit are "whether some unfair firefighters are enriched, if the US Department of Justice and the Forest Service cover the CIA and drug cartel links to multiple aircraft, whether the plane should remain in private hands, if the list of defendants should grow or decrease, and who is telling the truth. "
The suit was originally filed in the US District Court in Oregon (because that was where Reagan was living at the time), and the court finally ruled out the act. Eitel appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 1997, returned the case and allowed the Justice Department to join Eitel as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. At this time, the case was also transferred to the District Court in Arizona. The Eitel and the Justice Department, however, disagreed over allegations of CIA involvement, and whether it should be a factor in the lawsuit. The Dojo filed a motion in 1998 to bring down several defendants, provoking a sharp dispute between the Eitel and the Department, and led to Eitel's allegation that the DoJ was covering secret activities and evidence.
One of the defendants mentioned in the lawsuit is Riverside County, California County Supervisor Jim Venable, who is also the original recipient President, Hemet Valley Flying Service, which received seven of the C-130s.
The Eitel filed a separate civil suit, which was later incorporated into its reporting action, against DoJ, USDA, and GSA for an out-of-court settlement between the government and Aero Union and TBM. Both of these contractors have received aircraft that the government retains its rights, and instead of maintaining the aircraft, they unload them for their parts, printing $ 750,000 in proceeds.
Placement of the plane
In the original intent of the exchange program, the C-130 should remain under the supervision of US agencies, and should only be used by contractors for fire-fighting purposes within the US boundary. However, it is not just the title of the aircraft being removed from the federal and into personal control, but the aircraft is used more than the fire department. Several aircraft were only sold on the open market (with one sold to South African fish transport operations), others experienced a confusing title transfer that covered their holdings, and Federal auditors found that a number of C-130s had been dismantled and parts sold on the open market. Reagan received his fourth plane title as a "commission", which then sold for $ 1.1 million. During the criminal case, both trial and appeal, it was recorded that the proceeds from this sale were not declared by Reagan on his income tax, which the court declared as proof that he knew that the transaction was illegal.
Two planes, operated by T & amp; G, was found hauling cargo in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War. This discovery played a major role in encouraging some investigations, and resulted in the Forest Service and FAA insisting that the aircraft be returned to the US.
Airplane swapped
Some of the older aircraft that started the replacement scandal are now in the museum; DC-7B to Pima Air & amp; Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona, a SNB-5 to the Planes of Fame museum, and UH-19B and C-119C to the Milestones of Flight museum on Fox Field.
Drug trafficking
There are at least two drug trafficking incidents involving C-130s from T & amp; G Aviation, one of the original five contractors in the exchange program. In 1990 - 1991, T & amp; G leases C-130A to Panama Trans Latin Air, which was indicted in 1994 in a Chicago federal court as one of the airlines used by Cali Cartel of Colombia. Luis Carlos Herrera Lizcano, a Colombian aviation executive involved with Trans Latin Air, was sentenced in 1995 to five years in a Florida federal prison. C-130A, and one other then sold by T & amp; G in 1993 to Aero Postal de Mexico for US $ 3.6 million.
In October 1997, one of the two planes returned to the spotlight when Mexican federal officials arrested him as a drug carrier. Mexican researchers have linked the owner of Aero Postal de Mexico, Jesus Villegas Covallos, to RamÃÆ'³n Arellano FÃ © © lix of Tijuana Cartel. Due to the size and visibility of C-130, officials doubt that the plane was used to carry drugs to the US, but was ideal for transporting contraband "either in the interior of Mexico or from South or Central America."
T & amp; G then filed for bankruptcy, and his assets were taken over by the International Air Response.
Allegations of CIA use
The covert use of several C-130 suspects by operators under contract with the CIA has naturally received considerable media attention. The source of the CIA's allegations was the rapporteur Gary Eitel, who began to suspect "criminal misconduct" and that he "inadvertently entered the CIA's covert operations" during his investigation. He came to believe that the exchange program, in part, was a way to channel military aircraft into the hands of private companies that contracted their services to the CIA, using the Forest Service as a non-hazardous intermediary for transfers.
After his investigation, Assistant Inspector General James Ebbitt testified that he had found no evidence of CIA involvement in the program. Congressman Charles Rose, upon hearing Eitel's testimony, went on to say that he was suspicious, stating, "The situation is rotten until heaven is high." Both the CIA and the Forest Service have strongly rejected CIA involvement in exchange programs. In the end, all the CIA allegations linked back to Eitel's claim, and in addition to his ongoing testimony in court and then in court, no evidence was produced that corroborated the CIA's relationship with the aircraft. The Justice Department has also denied any association, with US Attorney Claire Lefkowitz in a note stating "We have never found any evidence of CIA involvement."
Reagan tried to use the CIA connection to move for a new trial, alleging that one of the prosecution witnesses was a CIA agent who himself was under criminal investigation. In rejecting the motion, US District Judge William Browning declared, "The accusation that the CIA is involved is the best in illusion, while it is exciting, it is not carried by the evidence contained in the record."
Crash and fleet grounding
Three of the C-130s ended in collisions, two in California (1994 and 2002) when their wings separated in flight due to structural failure, and one in France in 2000 for undetermined reasons. French accident involving one of T & amp; G's C-130. As a direct result of this accident, in 2004 the entire C-130A airtanker fleet was permanently grounded by the Forest Service due to security concerns. The P-3A, all operated by Aero Union, was initially grounded, but was later returned to the air after it was determined that they could be safely operated, and they remained in operation until they were deposed in 2011.
See also
- Air firefighters
- Wildfire fires
- Wildfire
References
This article contains text extracted from one or more US court decisions and the decision, which as a product of the Federal Government, is in the public domain.
External links
- Counterfeit Claim Law and Reviews Tam Tam Quarter , October 1995
- "Probe of Aircraft Deals for Expanding Role of Forest Service Rooted in CIA Long-Running Links?", Seattle Press-Intelligencer
- International Air Responses vs. US, US Court of Appeal, 01-5117 The success of this appeal leads to the decision that contractors can defend their aircraft.
- USDA OA Audit Report, including an edited list of all aircraft included in the exchange program (airplane identification number is deleted)
- USDA OIG FY2003 Semiannual Report to Congress
- "The pilot test of theft began this week", Associated Press, September 2, 1997.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments