N475AT Westwind for salvage after 2006 accident.

ASN accident report
First photo taken in Stockholm in 2003, followed by photos from accident site.

This is 4 or 5th jet this company has crashed in the past 5 years

airtrek1.googlepages.com/airtrek … dincidents


On the post above by ‘atprn’, bottom left of the Air Trek story, is a news video from N492AT’s crash site.

Current fleet per FAA;

N236AT Cessna 414
N247AT Cessna 340
N280AT Westwind 1124
N475AT Westwind 1124
N511AT Cessna Citation 500
N622AT Cessna Citation 500
N633AT Cessna Citation 500
N639AT Westwind 1124
N658AT Cessna 414
N744AT Cessna Citation 500

FAA Registry for Air Trek

My question is, whose responsiblity is it, to record on the registry when an aircraft is destroyed, wfu, chopped up, etc…?

Clearly some of these aircraft are destroyed, yet actively listed on the registry? After all, someone could steal a Westwind, stick N280AT on the tail, and just fly around???

After all, there was that ex- American Airlines B727 that went missing in Africa, that has never been seen again???, where the heck did it go???.

FAA.gov Home

Airline Certificate Information - Detail View
Airline internet site Not available
FAA Designator Code FDIA
Certificate Number FDIA840D
Years In Business 29
Certificate Issue Date 03/28/1979
FAA Office Phone Number (407) 812-7700
Airline Information
Airline Address 28000-A5 AIRPORT ROAD

Make/Model Count
ISRAEL IA-1124 1

firstgov.gov | Privacy Policy | Web Policies & Notices | Site Map | Contact Us | Frequently Asked Questions | Forms

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

Readers & Viewers: PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | WinZip

As you can see the updated registry show much less aircraft then the one you refer to. But I do agree some of the data on the FAA sites are out of date.

airtrek1.googlepages.com/airtrek … dincidents

topix.net/forum/city/port-ch … KQSJ3SBV58

I realize the Air Trek accidents are well documented, so it is clear which aircraft are destroyed.

An example of what I was referring to is Flightaware an example of a Gulfstream still actively registered, though it was destroyed in an accident over a decade ago???

Just seems a little frustrating in an era when computers with just a click can be updated, yet a FAA database is so ‘olde’! Kinda like counting votes in Florida?

I used to subscribe to Biz Jets by Brian Gates, the new edition comes out this month, so I think I’ll order a copy. He has tracked every corporate jet since 1971, including a section of wfu, w/o, aircraft. Hopefully his info is a little more updated compared to the FAA’s.

sorry…but what is WFU?..

Also…how does a company with a Crash record like this manage to stay afloat??..I can think of 2 Airlines that were grounded for less, 1 had one Accident, and the other, never had any accidents…

Withdrawn From Use WFU, and aircraft databases, when aircraft are retired/stored often are listed as WFU.

I agree with your second comment??? They raid the company over billing practices, nothing to do with a horrifying record.

Air Trek ordered to stop flyingPosted: May 30th, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
By KATE SPINNER kate.spinner@heraldtribune.comSarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida)
An international air ambulance service based at the Charlotte County Airport has been shut down
indefinitely by federal officials for numerous safety problems.
The Federal Aviation Administration made an emergency decision Friday to suspend Air Trek’s carrier license,
effectively closing the business until it changes its operation.
According to the FAA’s emergency order, the company:

  • Failed to abide by guidelines regulating weight on aircraft.
  • Allowed unqualified pilots to command international flights.
  • Did not give pilots proper rest and training.
  • Did not maintain equipment on time.
  • Did not perform timely inspections.
    Dana Carr, who founded the company with his brother Wayne 30 years ago, said the company had not kept proper
    records, but followed federal safety guidelines and fixed the “clerical” errors that prompted the suspension.
    He said the federal government had not questioned the safety of Air Trek’s aircraft or the company’s operations.
    However, the first sentence of the suspension notice stated that agency officials “determined that an emergency exists
    related to safety in air commerce.”
    The suspension letter also said that Air Trek operated three flights that have crashed in the past three years, one of which
    killed six people.
    Carr said the company immediately fixed the clerical problems when the FAA brought them to his attention after an
    inspection two weeks ago.
    He said he is working with federal officials to lift the suspension and has filed an appeal.
    But due to safety concerns, the FAA will not allow the company to operate until it can prove that it meets standards, said
    FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen.
    With three propeller-driven aircraft and four jets, Air Trek transports sick or injured people between clinics and
    hospitals, sometimes in remote locations. The flights are both domestic and international.
    The company employs about 50 people, including pilots and physicians, Carr said. He said the forced halt in business is
    a tremendous financial strain for Air Trek and its employees, who remain on the payroll, but are growing nervous about
    the future.
    Carr would not say how much money the suspension is costing the company.
    He blamed the negative attention, including an investigation into his business three months ago by the Department of
    Defense and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, on a bitter competitor.
    The Department of Defense cannot comment on whether its investigation into Air Trek is active, said Gary Comerford, a
    public information officer for the agency.
    When Air Trek’s name is cleared, Carr said he will sue the competitor who complained to the Department of Defense for
    punitive damages.
    Until then, Carr said he would not reveal the rival’s name.
    Air Trek does have critics. There is a lengthy online discussion board on Topix.net that is dedicated solely to bashing Air
    Another Web site, hosted by the free service Angelfire.com, posts links to news reports related to Air Trek, including the
    fatal crash in Panama that killed four people from West Virginia, a passenger from Italy and a Panamanian on the
    Carr said the discussion board is also the handiwork of his competitor.
    “That’s made up of a combination of some disgruntled ex-employees and this competitor, and you notice that none of
    them are willing to put their name to anything,” Carr said.

airtrek1.googlepages.com/airtrek … dincidents

AIR TREK Web Site:
"Our website is currently under construction. "

Shouldn’t that read “destruction”? :stuck_out_tongue:


“The journey home begins here”

So… they tell you before flight that “home” is where your maker is?

abc-7.com/siteson7/SE-18284%20Ai … plaint.pdf

This link is the Faa official letter of revocation. Scroll down to page 3 thats were all the violations start.

Wow, how did they manage to stay up and running so long?

No pun, maybe an oxymoron.

Google “Air Trek Accidents” and see what comes up.

Doing a little background research would have revealed that this company crashed 4 jets (from a fleet of 5 jets and 3 twin pistons or 50% or their aircraft) in the 4 years preceding the FAA suspension/revocation of their Part 135 certificate; resulting in numerous fatalities and injuries to employees, medical patients (during Air Ambulance operations), and family members.

In addition to the accidents, numerous other issues ranging from multiple engine failures, gear-up landings, accident site tampering, etc. are documented by the FAA/NTSB and several foreign governments. Conducting a Google search will bring up numerous websites that will lead you to the appropriate government sites or visit the NTSB accident database and conduct a search there.

Why did it take the FAA so long to look hard at this company?

On April 22, 2009, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) denied an appeal by the FAA and affirmed the initial decision of Administrative Law Judge William A. Pope, II, modifying an emergency order. The FAA sought revocation of the air carrier certificate held by Air Trek, Inc., an air ambulance operator based in Punta Gorda, Florida.

Air Trek has been grounded since May 24, 2008, when the FAA first issued an emergency order indefinitely suspending its certificate, pending compliance with the federal aviation regulations. On June 10, 2008, the FAA withdrew its suspension order and issued an order of revocation instead. Prior to the revocation, Air Trek had been in operation for thirty years with no history of violation.

The revocation order initially contained 38 factual allegations and 14 regulatory violations. At the outset of the 9-day hearing, the FAA withdrew 7 factual allegations and 2 regulatory violations. By the fourth day of the hearing, the FAA withdrew most of the remaining factual allegations and 9 of the 14 violations.

According to the NTSB, the FAA’s attorney “almost immediately began experiencing difficulties in presenting his case.” In denying the Agency’s appeal, the NTSB stated that the FAA’s brief was “long on argument and short on proof.” Accordingly, the NTSB affirmed the law judge’s decision modifying the revocation order to an indefinite suspension, until such time that Air Trek can satisfy the FAA that it can safely fulfill all responsibilities of its air carrier certificate.

The NTSB stated, “we do not find that the Administrator has established sufficient support for the complaint’s allegation regarding lack of qualifications, as well as other allegations that the law judge dismissed.” In conclusion, the NTSB ordered the FAA and Air Trek to “work together in good faith, as expeditiously as practical,” in order to resolve the FAA’s concerns and demonstrate that Air Trek can properly operate in accordance with its certificate and regulatory requirements. As of April 30, 2009, the FAA has not yet established a schedule for Air Trek to demonstrate compliance.

Throughout the hearing and appeal, Air Trek was represented by Gregory S. Winton, Esq. of Aviation Law Experts, LLC, along with co-counsel, Darol H.M. Carr, Esq. of the Farr Law Firm. Winton, a former FAA senior trial attorney, has been practicing aviation law exclusively for the past 20 years.

According to Winton, “although the revocation order did not survive, Air Trek has been grounded for almost one year and has lost millions of dollars in revenue. Nevertheless, Air Trek is ready, willing, and able to immediately demonstrate that it can properly operate in accordance with its operating certificate and regulatory requirements.” In the meantime, Winton will apply for reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses on behalf of his client pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

Gregory S. Winton, Esq.
Aviation Law Experts, LLC
Tel: 301-294-8550 Cell: 301-529-5660

why would anyone want to salvage that thing

If Air Trek didn’t have any issues…

Can anyone rationally explain how they managed to crash 4 jets in a 3 year period?

Didn’t think so…just cause the FAA did a poor job investigating doesn’t mean the allegations weren’t true.