Updated: Mammoth Yosemite cleared for takeoff
FAA finds little out of place in AFFF investigation
The results are in from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) investigation of possible safety violations at Mammoth Yosemite Airport.
The investigation stemmed from allegations by a former Mammoth Airport employee, Doug Kriese, that the airport had maintained an inadequate level of AFFF, or aqueous film-forming foam agent at the end of 2010.
According to the FAA report, the ARFF, or Airport Rescue and Firefighting vehicle contained AFFF in an amount that satisfied the Airport Index requirement but not another regulatory requirement.
A portion of the regulation states that there must be enough AFFF to “mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle.” According to the report, “the airport was unaware of the regulatory requirement and believed that by satisfying the Index requirement they were satisfactory.”
“It took the FAA inspectors awhile to find this and we were unaware of the regulation,” explained the Town of Mammoth’s Airport and Transportation Director Bill Manning. “It’s a nuance in the whole deal.”
Essentially, it means that while the airport was compliant in one area of FAA index regulation, they were not compliant in a regulatory area; a minor error.
“The letter is a warning letter, which is the lowest form of sanction we can take. As you can see, the violations were inadvertent and the airport has already taken corrective actions,” explained FAA Public Affairs Manager Ian Gregor in an e-mail.
“When the FAA conducts an investigation they have to send a letter no matter what,” Manning explained. “Every year when they do an inspection they send a letter of correction even if there is nothing wrong,” he continued in order to prove his point that the Warning Letter was just part of FAA bureaucracy.
The letter also noted that personnel training for live fire exercises were not at acceptable levels.
“This was the third year in a row that we have conducted our personnel training onsite,” Manning said. “The FAA had approved the two previous year’s trainings but this year they felt that we needed to send our employees to a one-day class in Riverside, which we have signed them up for in May.”
Manning went on to say that the airport had been trying to go above and beyond the minimum requirement by having the training onsite since the employees were able to work with the equipment they would actually use in an incident and train with the emergency agencies they would actually be working with, namely Long Valley Fire Department and Mammoth Lakes Fire Department.
“Going to Riverside is actually cheaper and easier than doing the training onsite,” Manning added.
So what about Kriese, the employee who made the allegations in the first place? He believes the Airport Director, i.e. Manning, should have known about the regulations and there should have been enough AFFF to mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle.
“The letter confirms that the vehicle [ARFF] did not have enough AFFF in it,” Kriese said. “If the Director doesn’t know about the regulations than maybe it’s time to move on to a new director.”
Kriese was, however, relieved that the airport had not been fined by the FAA because he did not want the Town to have to cover the costs.
“I don’t think the Town should have to pay for the airport management’s mistakes,” Kriese said. “I just wanted people to know that there is mismanagement out there [at the airport].”
“The bottom line is that we were never out of index and public safety was never jeopardized,” Manning concluded. “We take that very seriously.”
The airport has already taken corrective action for both issues and the FAA stated in its letter that the case is closed and does not warrant any legal enforcement.
