Inspector General
In response to your letter (Letter 17-40062).
I have stated to the IG from the very start that "my
concerns" are purely legal. I have
informed every level of my Army chain of command including Mr. Jeffrey Langhout
for more than 2 years through official channels of the violations. The fact that the Army is breaking Federal
and International law is easily deducted and illustrated as purely legal.
Federal Laws and regulations requires all aviation systems
meet RTCA/DO-254, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware,
to be used in public airspace. EUROCAE
ED-12B is the equivalent standard required in International airspace by
International law: violating one violates the other. The Army does not contract
any aviation systems to DO-254. How can
the Army knowing and willfully break Federal and International law by
deliberately contracting, approving and using noncompliant systems in public
airspace? As I have pointed out to every
level of my management the CH-47 Army documentation explicitly states the
system does not meet DO-245 and is not contracted. How can the Army approve usage? If just one sub-system of the hundreds that
go into making up a flight platform is non-compliant then the entire platform
is non-compliant. Of the three platforms
I have worked all are non-compliant: Black Hawk, Apache and Chinook. None of the Army systems or subsystems are
contracted for compliance to the legal requirement specified by Federal and
International Law. This requirement was
legislated to insure safety and airworthiness which the Army consciously
ignores, deliberately breaks and punishes those that raise the issue. If the Army is not contracting to meet the
legislated requirement then the Army is automatically in violation of Federal
and International Law in public airspace.
The same argument applies to Army noncompliance to
RTCA/DO-178 (EUROCAE ED-12B for International) also required by Federal and
International law but only sometimes contracted for by the Army, as is required
contact data items, only sometimes. How
can you be compliant if you do not have the data required by the standard? The CH-47 Army documentation states that the
system does not compliant with DO-178 just as with DO-254. Documenting, once again, the Army violating
both Federal and International Law, knowingly & deliberately.
The IG letter states that my legal concerns were referred to
another agency but supplies no supporting evidence or details. The obstruction met throughout this process
is clearly illustrated by Letter 17-40062 which states that the issue is
resolved by referring the legal issue to another agency. Since the letter does not state which agency,
I have to extrapolate this is a reference to the Safety Agency, but why would
Safety address legal issues or any other agency other than the IG itself for
that matter? I strongly dispute the
other Agency rational given for closing the case. I have extensive emails exchanges with the IG
stating exactly as I have here that this is purely a legal violation, not a
technical issue, as shown above and why Safety or a Safety incident reporting
website is not appropriate for this legal issue.
All I have sought is a written explanation/justification for
the Army's blatant disregard for and documented violations of Federal and
International law, which Army management or IG have not and will not provide.
Please acknowledge receipt
of this document and your position that Letter 17-40062 is your final response,
if that is the case.
Comments
Post a Comment