Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: Ex Parte Correspondence: Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204 

---Application of Norwegian Air International Limited 

for an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit 

From: Robert J. Fina.KJ.erfeR-:-...-' 

Chief, Foreign Air Carrier L1 ensing Division 

Office of International Aviation 

To: Cheryl Collins, Program Manager 

Docket Management 

Date: November 13, 2014 

Reply to 

Attn. of: 

The following e-mail and attachments were received by the staff on November 12, 2014. Please 

post in Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204 as ex parte correspondence. 
From: Steve Colman

To: Gretch, Paul (OST)

Cc: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Subject: NAI, Norwegian Airline Group - neglect of regulatory, safety oversight

Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:24:49 AM

Attachments: Declaration of Cpt Colman.pdf

Letter to US DOT re NAI.pdf

complaint to CAA Norway.pdf

caa Norway letter.pdf

ICAO audit of Norway 3 6 9.pdf

Dear Mr. Gretch,

Re: NAI, Norwegian Airline Group - neglect of regulatory, safety oversight

I write to provide information to the DOT, in preparation for the forthcoming meeting with

EU Delegates to discuss the NAI, Norwegian Airline Group application.

Evidence of the lack of regulatory, safety oversight of NAI, Norwegian Airline Group,

including applicable laws, is attached and below, within my communication to:

1. Irish CAA Director General, John Fearon

2. Norway Prime Minister, Erna Solberg

3. European Free Trade Association, EFTA, Secretary General, Kristinn Arnason

4. Norway Minister for Transport, Ketil Solvik-Olsen

5. Norway CAA Director General, Stein-Erik Nodeland

Please contact me if you require any additional facts.

Best regards,

Captain Stephen Colman

From: sdcolman@hotmail.com

To: john.fearon@iaa.ie; donal.handley@iaa.ie; kevin.humphreys@iaa.ie

CC: bjorn.kjos@norwegian.no; gunnar.martinsen@norwegian.no; frode.berg@norwegian.no;

bjorn.kise@norwegian.no

Subject: CAA Norway neglect of regulatory, safety oversight

Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:17:59 -0600

Dear Director General Fearon,
Re: CAA Norway neglect of regulatory, safety oversight

In the interests of potential air safety issues, I write to apprise you of a CAA Norway's

neglect of regulatory safety oversight, and enforcement of air safety regulations with respect

to the parent airline of an operation under your authority.

Please find attached my declaration and letter submitted as evidence to the US Department

for Transportation. The submissions summarizes events. Also attached is the original

complaint I submitted to CAA Norway listing the safety and operational incongruity reports I

was obliged to lawfully submit during my tenure as B737 Captain with Norwegian Air Shuttle

and Norwegian Long Haul.

All safety reports listed in my complaint are supported with applicable EU OPS regulations.

Item 3 was classified as a Mandatory Occurrence Report. At items 1-14 in the complaint I list

the retaliatory and punitive action taken against me by Norwegian, including termination.

A Freedom of Information request was made to CAA Norway for details of their

"investigation" into my complaint - see below. No specific answers were forthcoming,

however, the attached letter between CAA Norway and the Ministry of Transport was

provided. In their letter CAA Norway contends the retaliatory and punitive acts against me

for submitting safety reports were:

"Personal in nature and not the responsibility of the CAA" - Stein-Erik Nodeland, Director

General - CAA Norway.

Retaliatory and punitive acts against person submitting aviation safety reports are in clear

violation the national laws required by EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 and ICAO

Annex 13, Chapter 8. CAA Norway has failed to discharge the duties of its office with

respect to these laws.

The Norwegian Airline Group continues its punitive action against me by failing to provided

flight training information to prospective aviation employers - a violation of the US Federal

law, Pilot Record Improvement Act, 1996. Norwegian has also disclosed details and

account numbers of my personal bank account to third parties without my express

permission - a violation of EU Directive 95/46/EC and the Norway Personal Data Act.

As you may be aware, Article 17 of the EU US Air Transport Agreement clearly states;

"The opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour

standards, or the labour related rights and principles contained in the Parties respective

laws" - ref national laws above.
I passed all exams, tests and checks given to me by the Norwegian Airline Group. No

disciplinary investigation or action was ever taken against me by the Norwegian Airline

Group or its partner agency, ARPI Aviation Norway. At the time of my termination the

Norwegian airline Group was actively recruiting pilots with less experience than me. To date,

no legitimate reason has been given for my termination.

The fact that Norwegian terminated my contract without investigation, is a discriminatory

act itself and in violation of the International Labour Organization core

conventions. Notwithstanding any ethical and principle considerations.

Kjos and his cronies have since alleged that my flying skills were not proficient. Apparently,

the assessment took the entire eight months of my tenure. However, I passed my last

Proficiency Check ten days before termination. The instructor made the annotation "nice

handling of aircraft". My last flight as B737 Captain was one day before termination. Sadly,

Norwegian is an airline that thrives on social media, adolescent gossip, anonymous staff

reports and inter-office politics rather than documented facts. You will note I have both the

courage and conviction of my words and have copied this communication to Kjos and his

cronies.

As evidence by the attached, above and below, the US Department for Transportation is

entirely correct in denying NAI a temporary Foreign Air Carrier Permit. Myself and other

members of ALPA will be attending Washington next week to meet personally with

Members of the US Congress to further discuss the Norwegian application. 

Please contact me if you require any additional facts.

Best regards,

Captain Stephen Colman

From: sdcolman@hotmail.com

To: vidar.helgesen@smk.dep.no

CC: jb@smk.dep.no; lo@smk.dep.no; sa@smk.dep.no; tv@smk.dep.no; ret@smk.dep.no;

bst@smk.dep.no; oyvind.ek@sd.dep.no; monica.holstrom@sd.dep.no;

monica.nymoen@caa.no; einar.schjolberg@caa.no; steinerik.nodeland@caa.no

Subject: Norway Government - Non-compliance with EEA Agreement

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 08:06:20 -0600

Dear Prime Minister Solberg,
Re: Norway Government - Non-compliance with EEA Agreement - CAA Norway

An authority within your government, CAA Norway, has failed to comply with regulations

and conditions required by EFTA membership. Specifically, EEA Agreement, Annex

13, Transport - Part 1, sec 6, Civil Aviation, EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4. The

Directive requires both implementation and compliance of national laws of non-punitive

aviation safety reporting. Alarmingly, CAA Norway refers to such illegal acts of retaliatory

and punitive action, including termination, as:

"Personal in nature and not the responsibility of the CAA" - Stein-Erik Nodeland, Director

General - CAA Norway (attached letter).

Please review my communication below to EFTA Secretary General, Kristinn Arnason

concerning Norway's non-compliance with the EEA Agreement. Preceding communication to

Transport Minister, Ketil Solvik-Olsen is below, as is my Freedom of Information request to

CAA Norway.

My signed declaration and letter submitted as evidence to the US Department for

Transportation summarizes events and is also attached.

CAA Norway's contempt for the protection of persons submitting safety reports is evidenced

in the attached ICAO audit. The audit found that CAA Norway did not meet international

standards with respect to protecting the sources of safety information. In addition to the

above, CAA Norway is also in violation the Norway Law Act of 19 May, 2006, No 16,

Section 31 - Refusal and justification for same [to provide information].

There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that CAA Norway has not only failed to

discharge the regulatory, safety oversight duties of its office, but may possibly have

circumvented the safety regulations above.

I request your government fully investigates the matter.

I look forward to your reply. 

Sincerely,

Captain Stephen Colman

cc: Norway Transport Ministry

 CAA Norway
From: sdcolman@hotmail.com

To: kfa@efta.int

CC: mzb@efta.int; hsk@efta.int; gba@efta.int; dst@efta.int; oyvind.ek@sd.dep.no;

anders.anundsen@jd.dep.no; monica.holstrom@sd.dep.no

Subject: EFTA member Norway - CAA Norway non-compliance

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 02:46:36 -0600

Dear Secretary General Arnason,

Re: EFTA member Norway - CAA Norway non-compliance with laws required by EU Directive

2003/42/EC (aviation safety reporting).

Norway is signatory to the EEA Agreement. Annex 13, Transport - Part 1, sec 6,

Civil Aviation, includes Directive 2003/42/EC. Within the Directive is Article 8.4,

requiring national laws of non-punitive aviation safety reporting. The Directive requires

both implementation and compliance. Indeed, the remit of CAA Norway includes;

"...compliance with regulations and conditions"

By its own admission, CAA Norway has failed to discharge the safety oversight duties of its

office in respect of the EU Directive.

A Freedom of information request was submitted to CAA Norway in regard to my prior

complaint of retaliatory and punitive action against me by the Norwegian Airline Group after

I submitted safety reports - ref items 1-14 attached complaint. No direct answers were

forthcoming, however, a letter was eventually provided between the authority and Norway

Ministry of Transport - attached. In the letter, matters of retaliatory and punitive action by

the Norwegian Airline Group are considered to be:

"Personal in nature and not the responsibility of the CAA" - Stein-Erik Nodeland, Director

General - CAA Norway

Such a policy is in direct contradiction of the intention of EU 2003/42/EC. Retaliatory and

punitive acts against persons submitting aviation safety reports are in violation of the law

and must necessarily be investigated accordingly, in a competent, professional and impartial

manner.

Additionally, Norway is signatory to the ICAO Chicago Convention. Annex 13, Chapter

8, requires signatory states to implement non-punitive, safety reporting laws.

Please refer to the attached extract of a previous ICAO Audit of CAA Norway. You will note

that CAA Norway did not meet international standards with respect to non-punitive safety
reporting.

 

As you may be aware, the Norwegian Airline Group has been refused a temporary Foreign

Air Carrier Operating Permit by the US Department for Transportation. Evidence to the

DOT included concerns regarding the safety oversight of the airline. 

The matter has previously been reported to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),

European Commission and other EU departments and officials.

I request EFTA investigates this matter. Please provide me with a reference number.

I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Captain Stephen Colman

cc: Norway Ministry of Transport

From: sdcolman@hotmail.com

To: ottar.ostnes@sd.dep.no; oyvind.ek@sd.dep.no

CC: eva.hildrum@sd.dep.no; monica.holstrom@sd.dep.no; postmottak@sd.dep.no;

steinerik.nodeland@caa.no; einar.schjolberg@caa.no

Subject: CAA Norway oversight duties - Information request

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 05:38:55 -0500

Dear Minister Solvik-Olsen,

RE: CAA Norway oversight duties - Information request - Norway Law Act of 19 May 2006,

No. 16 (Freedom of Information Act)

The remit of CAA Norway is copied from the Ministry of Transport and Communications

website below:

"An administrative agency responsible for ensuring safe and efficient operation of civil

aviation. Issues regulations, lays down standards for civil aviation activities in Norway, grants

licences and operating permits to persons and companies intending to conduct aviation and

related activities. Oversees compliance with regulations and conditions"
My original compliant to CAA Norway is attached. A chronological order of events is listed in

my letter and declaration, submitted to the US Department of Transportation as evidence.

A formal request for information was sent to CAA Norway on 23 September, 2014. CAA

Norway has neither acknowledged nor responded to my request.

I refer specifically to EU Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8.4 (non-punitive, voluntary safety

reporting), implemented by CAA Norway via the Act of 3 June 2005, sec 35, following

an ICAO audit - see attached extract. In order to establish compliance with the regulation

CAA Norway must necessarily investigate the reason for employment termination when it

receives any compliant of non-compliance - see items 6 and 8 of my information request,

below.

Presently, due to the refusal to provide the requested information, it may be inferred

that CAA Norway has not discharged the duties of its office, competently or otherwise, and

the Norwegian Airline Group (NAS, NLH, NAI), does not have proper oversight by the

regulating authorities.

Please direct CAA Norway to provide the requested information below.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Captain Stephen Colman 

cc: CAA Norway - Nodeland/Schjolberg

From: sdcolman@hotmail.com

To: steinerik.nodeland@caa.no

CC: ottar.ostnes@sd.dep.no; patrick.ky@easa.europa.eu; frank.manuhutu@easa.europa.eu;

einar.schjolberg@caa.no; donal.handley@iaa.ie

Subject: Request for information - Norway Law Act of 19 May 2006, No. 16

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:05:38 -0500

Dear Director Nodeland,

Re: Request for Information - Norway Law Act of 19 May, 2006, No 16 (Freedom of

Information Act)
Numerous European legislative bodies have stated CAA Norway to be a "competent

authority". Declarations have been made that the Norwegian Airline Group is overseen to

a level beyond reproach. Therefore, it may be presumed that any compliant against the

Norwegian Airline Group shall be investigated thoroughly, and with the highest standards of

professionalism and integrity. 

I refer to:

1. My attached complaint to CAA Norway dated 11 January 2013, in which I detail safety

matters, operational and administrative incongruities within the Norwegian Airline

Group, including but not limited to, a violation of EU Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8.4

- non-punitive safety/occurrence reporting. NOTE: CAA Norway adopted the

intentions of the EU Directive from July 2007 - see attached ICAO Audit of CAA

Norway, Report, Appendix 3.6.9, AIG/09.

2. Your acknowledgement dated 14 January 2013, of receipt of my complaint, and your

statement that my complaint will receive "proper treatment".

3. Communication dated 11 September 2014, from EASA Chief Legal Advisor, Mr. Frank

Manuhutu, stating EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 to be entirely applicable to my

compliant.

Via the above Norway Law Act of 19 May 2006, No. 16, I request the following information:

1. The name(s) of the CAA Norway official(s) assigned to investigate my complaint.

2. A list of all aviation legislation referenced by CAA Norway during the investigation of

my compliant, to include: EU OPS regulations, ICAO Annexes, Norway Aviation Act and

Finland Aviation Act.

3. Copies of all documents, reports, letters, emails, statements, exam results, simulator

training reports, simulator test reports, line training reports, line check reports, crew

rosters, leave requests, base requests, internal job applications, electronic database

information, telephone call records/transcripts, video/audio recordings, notes, and all

other evidence examined by CAA Norway when investigating my compliant.

4. The names of all persons interviewed by CAA Norway during the investigation of my

compliant and copies of their written statements, or notes, audio/video recordings, if

no written statement was made.

5. Details of CAA Norway's investigation of the EU OPS violations/incongruity events

listed in items 1-5 of my complaint.

6. Specific details of the CAA Norway investigation of the event listed at item 3 of

my complaint - Mandatory Occurrence Report - ref: EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Annex

1, Aircraft occurrences to be reported - B, Aircraft Technical (ii), (a), (f), (h), (m).
7. Details of CAA Norway's examination of any disciplinary investigation conducted by

the Norwegian Airline Group against me. To include copies of all communications,

emails, reports, written statements from any Post Holder, manager, staff member,

employee, third party contracted worker, complainants, witnesses, or from any

persons providing information to the Norwegian Airline Group to cause or affect any

disciplinary investigation.

8. The specific reason given to CAA Norway by the Norwegian Airline Group for my

termination - ref ARPI Aviation Norway communication to me dated 27 December

2012; "Based on the decision of our client" (the Norwegian Airline Group). NOTE: a

specific reason for my termination is necessarily required in order for CAA Norway to

determine compliance or non-compliance, with EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 -

non-punitive safety/occurrence reporting.

9. A copy of the final report/conclusion of the CAA Norway officials investing my

complaint (your letter dated 12 February lacks the sufficient detail required of any

competent investigation to determine compliance with EU 2003/42/EC Article 8.4).

I remind you and CAA Norway once again;

After I submitted safety and operational incongruity reports, supported by EU OPS

regulations and company policy (1-5 in my compliant), the Norwegian Airline Group treated

me in a hostile manner (1-14 in my complaint), and eventually terminated my employment

contract without investigation or reason.

I passed all exams, tests and checks given to me by the Norwegian Airline Group. No

disciplinary investigation or action was ever taken against me by the Norwegian Airline

Group or its partner agency, ARPI Aviation Norway. At the time of my termination the

Norwegian airline Group was actively recruiting pilots with less experience than me. To date,

no reason has been given for my termination. 

The retaliatory and punitive nature of the Norwegian Airline Group when responding to

perceived criticism, is proficiently evidenced by its CEO, Bjorn Kjos. Following the refusal by

the US Department of Transportation to grant it a temporary Foreign Air Carrier Permit, Mr.

Kjos retaliated by announcing that "US Politicians were bought and paid for" - DN.no news, 3

September.

It is of concern that because events listed in 1-5 in my compliant occurred at an operational

base outside Norway, your authority may not have, for whatever reason, conducted a

thorough and competent investigation. Your timely response to my request for information

will answer this concern. 
Regards,

Captain Stephen Colman

cc:

 Ottar Ostnes, Norway Ministry of Transport and Communications

 Einar Schjolberg, CAA Norway

 Patrick Ky, European Aviation Safety Agency - EASA

 Frank Manuhutu - EASA

 

 
Evidence to the US Department of Transport in the application of the 

Norwegian Airline Group (Norwegian) for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit 

August 18, 2014 

Dear Secretary Foxx, 

I write as someone on the blunt ‘receiving end’ of the Norwegian business model as it relates 

to Article 17 of the current EU-US Air Transport Agreement. 

Please review items 1-26 of my attached declaration detailing the facts of my tenure as a 

contract Captain with the Norwegian regime. 

Much has been proclaimed by Norwegian in regard to its alleged compliance and promotion 

of the human worth values within Article 17 - “The opportunities created by the Agreement 

are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and principles 

contained in the parties respective laws”. 

Unlike Norwegian, Article 17 makes no distinction between employee and contract worker. 

I received two agency contracts with Norwegian. Each contract contained the stipulation I 

could not hold the lessee airline, Norwegian, responsible as the employer (ref item 4). 

Several legal jurisdictions were applicable to the working relationship (ref item 5). 

In reference to safety, discrepancy or whistle-blowing reports, European and local Member 

State labor laws, including aviation regulations, refer specifically to an employer/employee 

relationship. Therefore, any transgression by Norwegian against a contract crew member has 

effective impunity due to the complexity of applying employment law to the non-employer 

relationship Norwegian demands of its contract crew, notwithstanding, the legal issues of 

jurisdiction and forum (ref item 18). 

EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 states: “Member States shall ensure that employees

who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are not subjected to any prejudice 

by their employer”. 

A contract crew member has neither protection nor redress from any punitive/discriminatory 

action by Norwegian. Consequently, contract crew members may not submit safety or other 

reports management may perceive as critical of the airline. It is implausible to suggest that 

such a work environment is conducive to a safety culture. It is conducive to a fear culture. 

The earlier safety information is submitted, the earlier any threat to safety can be resolved. 

Any business model that would obstruct and deter such information is unprincipled. 

Norwegian’s company Code of Ethics states: “We place great importance on ensuring 

compliance with employees basic human rights as outlined in the International Labor 

Organization’s core conventions”. 

My declaration details a personal experience of Norwegian’s absolute disregard for labor 

standards, rights and principles, including the International Labor Organization core 

convention number 158 – “A worker may not have his employment terminated unless there is 

a valid reason connected with the workers aptitude or behavior or based on the operational 

needs of the enterprise, establishment or service” – (ref items 12, 13 and 14). 

Every contract crew member currently working for Norwegian is exposed to, potentially, the 

same unethical treatment detailed in my declaration. It is inconceivable that the Norwegian 

business model could comply with the spirit and intention of Article 17. 

I respectfully request that you not only deny Norwegian’s application for a Foreign Air Carrier 

Permit, but also necessitate a review of their operations within the US for any possible noncompliance with FAR Part 129 – (ref item 10). 

Yours truly, 

Captain S. Colman 

 

 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) Docket No. OST-2013-0204 

NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL ) 

LIMITED ) 

 ) 

for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 ) 

and a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to ) 

49 U.S.C. § 41301 (US-EU Open Skies) ) 

 ) 

Declaration of Captain Stephen Colman

1. My name is Stephen Colman. I am a former contract pilot for Norwegian Air Shuttle, and 

Norwegian Long Haul. My declaration identifies the significant problems and regulatory 

failures I faced when attempting to seek redress from multiple European countries’ 

regulators for adverse employment actions taken against me because of my safety 

reporting. I cannot conceive how the business model to which I was subjected could be 

consistent with the spirit and intent of Article 17 bis of the U.S-EU Air Transport 

Agreement. 

2. I have been flying long-haul widebody and narrowbody airline transport category aircraft 

for 29 years. I hold several Airline Transport Pilot Licenses (ATPL) issued by various 

authorities, including by the United Kingdom. 

3. I responded to a Norwegian Air Shuttle (“Norwegian” or “NAS”) advertisement to join 

the airline. Norwegian arranged tickets to attend their interview. Norwegian informed me 

I had been successful and gave me a choice of three agencies with which to sign a 

contract for a three-year term. 

4. I was provided with two contracts. Each contract contained the specific clause that the 

crew member has no claim he is or was an employee of the lessee airline (the Norwegian 

Airline Group). 

5. The employment agency I selected was “ARPI Aviation Norway.” Despite its name, the 

contract identified ARPI Aviation Norway’s office address as being in Poland. In the 

contract, ARPI Aviation Norway chose Swedish law to govern the contract. My 

operational base with Norwegian was Helsinki, Finland. At the same time, my ATPL and 

medical are issued in the United Kingdom, while Norwegian has its corporate 

headquarters/principal place of business in Norway. As can be seen, several legal 

jurisdictions potentially affected my working relationship with Norwegian. 

1 
6. Starting in May 2012, Norwegian provided all my training. I passed all exams and 

probationary period, including Norwegian’s CAA-Norway-approved, mandatory Crew 

Resource Management (CRM) course. I also passed all subsequent exams, tests and 

checks. 

7. Norwegian provided me with an official crew member identification badge with the 

abbreviation ‘Empl’ (employee) with number, and ‘Empl’ (employee) with date, 

appearing on the badge. However, the name of my employment agency, ARPI Aviation 

Norway, did not appear on the badge. 

8. In October 2012, Norwegian notified me that in addition to flying for NAS, I would also 

be “hired out” to fly for another airline with its own Air Operators Certificate (AOC), 

called Norwegian Long Haul (NLH). NLH would operate from my Helsinki base. I was 

not given a choice, and was neither consulted nor advised as to the terms and conditions 

with NLH prior to being notified, but was promised “great benefits” which did not 

materialize. 

9. Norwegian company policy, as stated in both the NAS and NLH Operations Manual, Part 

A (OMA) 1.4.1, requires that the aircraft commander shall ensure all standard 

procedures, instructions and regulations as laid down by the Company and various civil 

aviation administrations, are adhered to by all members of his or her crew, in the air and 

on the ground, and “on his [sic] own initiative make suggestions for improvements.” 

Norwegian, including its CEO, continually solicits safety information from its crew: “It is 

of great importance to the company that you have confidence to share your experiences 

with us.” 

10. Encouraged by these company policies that purported to solicit safety information, during 

my tenure I submitted six safety/operational discrepancy reports to both NAS and NLH 

management. All reports were supported with relevant company and/or EU OPS 

regulations. One report was classified under EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Annex 1 B (ii) 

(a) and (f), as a Mandatory Occurrence Report. The NAS Chief Pilot, the NLH Training 

Manager, and the Norwegian Airline Group Safety Manager all failed to reply to any of 

my reports. A reply from the Deputy Director of Flight Operations (DFO), demanded to 

know if I had contacted CAA Norway. 

11. Following my safety/operational discrepancy reports, the attitude of Norwegian’s 

management toward me became hostile. I cataloged the punitive and discriminatory 

actions taken against me and reported them to the Chief Pilot on November 30, 2012. 

The Chief Pilot did not reply. On December 20, 2012, I did hear from the Director of 

Flight Operations (DFO), who replied, “I am sorry to hear that you have experienced 

punitive actions against you.”

12. On December 31, 2012, Norwegian terminated my contract without giving any reason. 

(ARPI Aviation Norway’s notice to me stated: “Based on the decision of our client” - 

Norwegian). 

13. At the time Norwegian terminated my contract, no other Captain was terminated and 

Norwegian was placing advertisements for, and actively recruiting pilots, most of who 

were considerably less experienced than me. 

2 
14. Only days before my termination, on December 20, 2012, in fact, I received an above 

average grade for ‘winter operations’ on my last simulator check. The examiner made 

the annotation; “nice handling of aircraft”. Norwegian assigned and authorized me to 

command its B737 aircraft full of its passengers on a daily basis, including up to one day 

before termination. No disciplinary action or investigation was ever taken against me by 

Norwegian or ARPI Aviation Norway. 

15. In January 2013, I submitted a comprehensive report to CAA Norway regarding safety 

and operational discrepancies at Norwegian, including the punitive action and my 

termination by Norwegian. CAA Norway responded that NAS/NLH management had 

addressed the issues of my reports. However, the Director General of CAA Norway was 

categorically unwilling to consider any reason, connection or coincidence for my 

treatment and termination by Norwegian, stating; “Such issues were between employee 

and employer” and “Norwegian is free to hire the crew they would like to hire.” 

16. A prospective employer submitted a U.S. Pilot Record Improvement Act (PRIA) request 

to Norwegian’s Director of Flight Operations and Norwegian’s Chief Pilot. Only the 

respective airline is responsible to generate and retain training records. Neither officer 

responded to the PRIA request. 

17. I notified CAA Norway of Norwegian’s refusal to comply with US Federal Law. CAA 

Norway stated: “The CAA cannot comment on the US Federal Government Pilot Record 

Improvement Act and whether Norwegian has acted in accordance with the Act”. 

18. In addition to CAA Norway (item 15), I submitted details of my safety/operational 

discrepancy reports, treatment and termination by Norwegian, to the following bodies: 

(i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – February 25, 2013 - with reply: 

“The Norwegian CAA is the body responsible for collecting of safety related information, 

safety oversight and law enforcement in the filed of flight operations and safety 

management” 

(ii) Finland Transport Safety Agency (TraFi) - March 14, 2013 – with reply: 

“CAA Norway is the competent authority........” 

 

(iii) UK Civil Aviation Authority – May 23, 2013 – with reply: 

“The fact that aircraft operate based in Helsinki or Gatwick does not alter the 

responsibility of the Norwegian authority for oversight. CAA Norway is the competent 

authority” 

(iv) European Commission Flight Safety Department - July 4, 2013 – with reply:

"It is not relevant where the aircraft operates or where the commander is based or 

employed but which state ensures safety oversight, i.e. where the operator has its 

principle place of business"

 

3 
 

 (v) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – July 9, 2013 - with reply: 

“Whether or not there is non-compliance [with EU Ops] can only be made by the 

Norwegian CAA”

 

“We do not agree that it is up to Finland (the state from which you operated) to assess 

such non-compliance” 

(vi) EU Ombudsman – 17 October, 2013 – with reply:

“The responsibility to deal with these issue falls under the Norwegian CAA’s remit”

 

“Norway is not an EU member State, the Commission could not engage in infringement 

procedure or take other action against Norway” 

(vii) Finland Occupational Safety and Discrimination Administration – June 3, 2014 

– with reply: 

“The airline involved [Norwegian] is not Finnish and we cannot supervise them” 

(Despite Norwegian having aircraft and a large crew base in Helsinki, Finland) 

(viii) Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) Director of Safety - June 6, 2014 – NO REPLY. 

19. However, as I have described, CAA Norway refused to take any action concerning my 

termination that I believe occurred in retaliation for my safety reporting. 

20. Recently, I was made aware that the Norwegian Airline Group and ARPI Aviation 

Norway disclosed my personal data, including my bank details and account numbers, to 

third parties without my express permission. Those third parties then disclosed that 

information to other third parties without my consent. Such action is in violation of the 

Norway Personal Data Act. 

21. The Norway Personal Data Act provides that upon request to entities holding their 

personal data, a person shall receive information to whom and for what purpose their data 

was disclosed. The Act also provides that upon request, their data is removed and they 

are notified of such. Necessary requests were made to both Norwegian and ARPI 

Aviation Norway Human Resource managers. To date, neither has replied. 

22. The actions of Norwegian and ARPI Aviation Norway have placed me at risk of potential 

identity theft, and violate Norway’s law.

23. The Norwegian Airline Group, Code of Ethics states: “We place great importance on 

ensuring compliance with employee’s basic human rights as outlined in the International 

Labor Organization’s core conventions”. Norwegian has also stated it “Applies the law of 

the country to where the employee is hired and based”. Sadly, the facts clearly 

demonstrate the reality of Norwegian’s gross hypocrisy. 

4 
24. Norwegian’s lawyers in Sweden have implied I may expect legal repercussions for 

breach of contract were I to file any claim for discriminatory action with reference to an 

“employer/employee” relationship – ref item 4. No other definition within safety related 

legislation currently exists - ref EU Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8.4: “Member States 

shall ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are 

not subjected to any prejudice by their employer”.

25. From the aforementioned documented facts, it is abundantly clear that a crewmember 

who is not a direct employee of the Norwegian Airline Group, and therefore is without 

union and Norway legal protections, has no redress if managers at Norwegian take 

punitive and discriminatory action against them, up to termination and even after. The 

quagmire of legislative jurisdictions makes such relief extremely difficult, if not 

impossible. It is implausible to suggest that such an abhorrent working environment 

is conducive to a culture that promotes safety. It is conducive to a culture of fear. 

26. Every contract crew member of Norwegian is exposed to and potentially subject to the 

same treatment detailed above. I respectfully request that NAI’s applications be denied. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true 

and correct to the best of my belief. 

Executed on ___________________ _______________________________ 

 Stephen Colman

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have, on this 18 day of August, 2014, served the foregoing document on 

the persons identified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail: 

Reese.Davidson@dot.gov; steve.morrissey@united.com; Thomas.bolling@united.com; 

dan.weiss@united.com; hershel.kamen@united.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; 

chris.walker@delta.com; Andrea.Newman@delta.com; mlbenge@zsrlaw.com; 

rpommer@atlasair.com; russell.bailey@alpa.org; david.semanchik@alpa.org; 

jonathan.cohen@alpa.org; robert.wirick@aa.com; francis.heil@aa.com; 

michael.wascom@aa.com; howard.kass@aa.com; jesse.elliot@faa.gov; 

douglas.schwab@faa.gov; nicholas.tsokris@faa.gov; john.y.chen@faa.gov; 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com; jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com; nssparks@fedex.com; 

gbleopard@fedex.com; pvs@eurocockpit.be cc@eurocockpit.be 

romanow@pillsburylaw.com; jennifer.trock@pillsburylaw.com; 

peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com; Melinda.hernandez@pillsbury.com; 

dberg@airlines.org; jcasey@airlines.org; kglatz@airlines.org; 

CBethke@airlines.org; edw@ttd.org; ejames@jamhoff.com; 

info@airlineinfo.com; clytle@portoakland.com; kgeorge@broward.org; 

mrichardson@swapa.org; sshur@traveltech.org; michael.whitaker@faa.gov; 

ottar.ostnes@sd.dep.no; david.batchelor@sesarju.eu; felix.leinemann@eeas.europa.eu; 

matthew.baldwin@ec.europa.eu; john.hanlon@elfaa.com; dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com; 

Athar.HusainKhan@aea.be; 

___________________________ 

Captain Steve Colman 
Secretary Anthony Foxx August 27, 2014 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary Foxx; 

Re: NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATION (NAI) – Docket No. OST-2013-0204 

 

I wish to provide additional information to the Department of Transportation by way of a 

rebuff to correspondence from a small number of NAI contract pilots (all provided a 

B787/ B777 type-rating course, plus a 3-year renewable contract by NAI). These pilots 

purport to represent an entire cadre, loyally supporting the NAI application. The pilots 

attest that NAI “Complies with all local laws” and safety concerns to be “false and 

groundless”.

Neither Norwegian nor its partner agency, ARPI Aviation Norway, complies with all 

local laws. Moreover, there is no obligation for Norwegian to comply with local 

employment law due to the fact they are not the “employer” of their contract crew. 

I refer to item 4 of my declaration submitted August 18 (OST-2013-0204-0142): 

4. I was provided with two contracts. Each contract contained the specific clause 

that the crew member has no claim he is or was an employee of the lessee airline

(the Norwegian Airline Group). 

I refer to attachment A 

Norwegian’s Chief Pilot letter, stating: 

“..... Engaged as Commander in Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA [also NLH], employed by 

ARPI Aviation.......” 

“For further information we refer to ARPI Aviation as Mr. Colman’s recent employer” 

The letter not only confirms Norwegian’s indemnity of liability as the employer, but 

also their punitive action in refusing to provide confirmation that a pilot passed all exams, 

tests and checks given by Norwegian, and that no disciplinary action or investigation was 

ever taken against that pilot by Norwegian. Only the airline is legally responsible to 

generate and provide such records, not any agency. 

I refer to attachment B 

UK Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, email: 

“ the legislation in Great Britain does not apply as the agency [ARPI] is not 

based in Great Britain” 

To the best of my knowledge, contract crew members operating NAI B787’s from Great 

Britain’s, London Gatwick base are employed via a Singapore contracting agency. 

Therefore, as implied above, Singapore legislation applies. Norwegian may wish to 

explain how it intends, if at all, to apply Singapore law to contract crew operating from 

London Gatwick, on transatlantic flights and on arrival in the USA. 
The pilots supporting NAI state they would not compromise safety even though 

Norwegian circumvents their legal protection via the use of employment agencies. Their 

proposed intentions are commendable. However, those pilots do not, and cannot, speak 

on behalf of all other contracted crew members, nor guarantee the reporting, or not, by 

any other crew member fearful of any retaliatory action by Norwegian. 

I refer to attachment C. 

European Directive 2003/42/EC – Article 8 Protection of Information 

4. In accordance with the procedures defined in their national laws and practices, 

Member States shall ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have 

knowledge are not subject to any prejudice by their employer

I refer to attachment D. 

Irish Aviation Authority IAA – Legislation and Regulatory Framework 

S.I. 285 of 2007 gives effect to EC Directive 2003/42/EC on occurrence reporting in civil 

aviation. The S.I. appoints the IAA as the ‘competent authority' for Ireland. The S.I. 

outlines the requirements for voluntary and mandatory reporting. It also details that a 

reporter shall be protected from any discriminatory action by their employer. 

Note: the use of the legally defined, “employees” and “employer” 

I refer to items 11-12 of my declaration submitted August 18 (OST-2013-0204-0142): 

11. Following my safety/operational discrepancy reports, the attitude of Norwegian’s 

management toward me became hostile. I cataloged the punitive and 

discriminatory actions taken against me and reported them to the Chief Pilot on 

November 30, 2012. The Chief Pilot did not reply. On December 20, 2012, I did 

hear from the Director of Flight Operations (DFO), who replied, “I am sorry to 

hear that you have experienced punitive actions against you.”

12. On December 31, 2012, Norwegian terminated my contract without giving any 

reason. (ARPI Aviation Norway’s notice to me stated: “Based on the decision of 

our client” - Norwegian). 

As evidenced above, Norwegian’s abhorrent business model provides it with indemnity 

of liability as the “employer”. It also proficiently circumvents legislation designed to 

protect both persons reporting safety concerns and “employees” who may experience 

discrimination, punitive action or wrongful termination by their “employer“. 

I respectfully request the Department of Transportation deny forthwith, the application by 

the Norwegian Airline Group (NAI) for any exemption or permit. 

Sincerely, 

Captain Stephen Colman 

ATPL rated B744/747/777/767/757/727/737/DC8/L1011 

Flight Engineer, Aircraft Dispatcher, ex-Boeing simulator instructor B767/757/737 

17, 840 hours worldwide flying experience, amassed in over 29 accident-free years 

 
norwegian 

Date 5th of August 2013 

To whom it may concern, 

We hereby confirm that Mr. S. Colman (address unknown) has been engaged as Commander in 

Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, employed by Arpi Aviation, in the period from May 2"' 2012 to 31st 

December 2012. 

Aircraft flown: B737-800. 

For further information, we refer to Arpi Aviation as Mr. S. Colman's recent employer. 

ARPI Aviation Norway 

Radmann Halmrastvei 12 

1337 Sandvika, Norway 

Phone: (+47)67568825 

Sincerely, 

Jan H. Christoffersen 

Chief pilot B737 /Sjefsflyger • Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA 

Oksen0yveien 3 • P.O Box 115 • 1330 Fornebu • Norway 

Mobile +47 94 18 51 72 Office +47 67 59 30 48 jan.christoffersen@norwegian.no 

norwegia£_~ 

Chief Pilot Administration 
RE: ARPI Aviation agency - formal complaint 

From: Worboys David (Labour Market) (Dave.Worboys@bis.gsi.gov.uk) 

Sent: Wed 6111/ 14 8:37AM 

To: 

Dear Mr Colman, 

I have had a response from Mr Tanem at ARPI concerning your complaint about a breach of confidentiality. 

Mr Tanem has stated that there Is no contractual relationship between ARPI In the UK and yourself. 

However, there was a relationship between you and ARPI Aviation Poland Sp. Z.o.o. in 2012 and 2013, which 

is incorporated in Poland. This is a separate legal entity from that in the UK. As it appears that the 

relationship was between you and a Polish agency, the legislation in Great Britain does not apply as the 

agency is not based in Great Britain. You may wish to consider approaching the Polish Authorities if you wish 

to pursue a complaint against ARPI Aviation Poland Sp. Z.o.o .. 

If you have any documentary evidence that the London branch of ARPI has passed on your information not 

for the purposes of work-finding, I will be happy to go back to Mr Tan em and ask him for an explanation. 

I am sorry to be sending you what will come as a disappointing response, but would like to thank you for 

taking the time to contact the Department. 

Kind regards, 

Dave Worboys 

Dave Worboys I Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate IBIS IT: 020 7215 4586 1 F: 020 7215 64141 

M: 07775 404 9381 E: dave.worboys@bis.gsl.gov.uk 

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) is making a difference by supporting 

sustained growth and higher skills across the economy. 

BIS: working together for growth 
If a Member State designates more than one body or entity, it

shall designate one of these as point of contact for the

exchange of information mentioned in Article 6(1).

2. The competent authorities shall store the reports collected

in their databases.

3. Accidents and serious incidents shall also be stored in

these databases.

Article 6

Exchange of information

1. Member States shall participate in an exchange of information by making all relevant safety-related information stored

in the databases mentioned in Article 5(2) available to the

competent authorities of the other Member States and the

Commission.

The databases shall be compatible with the software described

in paragraph 3.

2. The competent authority designated in accordance with

Article 5(1) receiving an occurrence report shall enter it into

the databases and notify, whenever necessary, the competent

authority of the Member State where the occurrence took

place, where the aircraft is registered, where the aircraft is

manufactured and/or where the operator is certificated.

3. The Commission shall develop specific software for the

purpose of this Directive. In so doing, it shall take into account

the need for compatibility with existing softwares in the

Member States. The competent authorities may use this software for running their own databases.

4. The Commission shall take appropriate measures to facilitate the exchange of information mentioned in paragraph 1 in

accordance with the procedure set out in Article 10(2).

Article 7

Dissemination of information

1. Any entity entrusted with regulating civil aviation safety

or with investigating civil aviation accidents and incidents

within the Community shall have access to information on

occurrences collected and exchanged in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 to enable it to draw the safety lessons from the

reported occurrences.

2. Without prejudice to the public's right of access to the

Commission's documents as laid down in Regulation (EC) No

1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30

May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,

Council and Commission documents (1

), the Commission shall

adopt on its own initiative and, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 10(2), measures for the dissemination to interested parties of the information referred to in paragraph 1 and the associated conditions. These measures, which

can be general or individual, shall be based on the need:

— to provide persons and organisations with the information

they need to improve civil aviation safety,

— to limit the dissemination of information to what is strictly

required for the purpose of its users, in order to ensure

appropriate confidentiality of that information.

The decision to disseminate information under this paragraph

shall be limited to what is strictly required for the purpose of

its user, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 8.

3. Member States may publish at least annually a safety

review containing information on the types of occurrences

collected by their national mandatory occurrence-reporting

system to inform the public of the level of safety in civil aviation. Member States may also publish disidentified reports.

Article 8

Protection of information

1. Member States shall, according to their national legislation, take necessary measures to ensure appropriate confidentiality of the information received by them pursuant to Articles

6(1) and 7(1). They shall use this information solely for the

objective of this Directive.

2. Regardless of the type or classification of occurrence and

accident or serious incident, names or addresses of individual

persons shall never be recorded on the database mentioned in

Article 5(2).

3. Without prejudice to the applicable rules of penal law,

Member States shall refrain from instituting proceedings in

respect of unpremeditated or inadvertent infringements of the

law which come to their attention only because they have been

reported under the national mandatory occurrence-reporting

scheme, except in cases of gross negligence.

4. In accordance with the procedures defined in their

national laws and practices, Member States shall ensure that

employees who report incidents of which they may have

knowledge are not subjected to any prejudice by their

employer.

5. This Article shall apply without prejudice to national

rules related to access to information by judicial authorities.

Article 9

Voluntary reporting

1. In addition to the system of mandatory reporting established under Articles 4 and 5, Member States may designate

one or more bodies or entities to put in place a system of

voluntary reporting to collect and analyse information on

observed deficiencies in aviation which are not required to be

reported under the system of mandatory reporting, but which

are perceived by the reporter as an actual or potential hazard.

2. If a Member State chooses to put in place a system of

voluntary reporting, it shall establish the conditions for the disidentification, by the one or more bodies or entities that it has

designated under paragraph 1, of voluntary reports presented

under such system.

4.7.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 167/25

(

1

) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

re not subjected to any prejudice by their

employer.

In accordance with the procedures defined in their p

national laws and practices, Member States shall ensure that

employees who report incidents of which they may have p y p yy

knowledge ar

Article 8
... + 

IAA 

Commercial Aviation 

• You are here: 

• tiS!!!!l 

• Commercial Ayiafion 

• Safety Reporting 

• l egislation & Regulaloly Framework 

Legislation and Regulatory Framework 

ICAO Annex 13 Chapter 8 details the Standards and Recommended Prac1ices (SARPs) for Incident reporting, database stontge, 

lnvestigatJon and exchange of inciden1 data. Ireland is a signaloly to the Chicago Convention and therefore Ireland has 

Implemented the slllndards and recommended practices of Annex 131hrough a combination of EU and national law. 

EC Directlw 20031<42/EC, on occurrence reporting In civil aviation, detalls the requirements for each EU member state on 

mandatOI)' reporting, colledion and storage, exchange, dissemination and protection of information. It also outlines a voluntary 

re~ system In compliance with the ICAO standard. 

S.l. 265 of 2007 gives effect to EC Diredive 20031<42/EC on occurrence reporting In clvi aviation. The S.l. aiiPC*'Its the 1M as the 

'competent au1hority' for Ireland. The S.l. outlines the requirements for voluntary and mandaloly reporting. It also details that a 

report« lhal be protected from any discrimlnatOI)' action by their employer. 

EC RegulabOn 170212003 Part 21A.16S detah reporting requirements for approved production organisations. 

EC Regulation 20<4212003 Part MA202 detail reporting requirements for continuing ali\OIOithlness organisations and Part 

1<4S.A.60 details reporting requirements for maintenance organisations. 

EC Regulation No 85912008 OPS 1.<420 details repor1lng requirements for commercJat air transport airlines. 

EC Regulation 209612005 Article 12 and annex II saction 3.1.2 details requirements for Air Navigation Service (ANS) providers. 

In edditlon IAA Notice S.02 •Reporting and assessment of safety occurrences In ATM", pursuant to articles 3 and <4 of Irish 

Avtatlon Authority (Eurocontrol 

Safety Regulatory Requirements Order 2003, (S I. No. 387 of 2003) gives effect to the reportJng requirements detailed in ESARR 

2 for All Traftlc Management Sefvices (ATM) 

IAA Aeronautical Noeice T.OS, pursuant to ArtJcles 8 and 23 of the Irish Aviation Authonty (Aerodromes and Vosual Ground Aids) 

Order, 2000, (S.I.No.334 of 2000), details reponmg requirements for peniOI1S who 8fe the licensee or manager of a licensed 

8Cif0drome, perlonns a fundion for which he requires an air trallic controller's licence or 8Cif0drome flight information oflice(a 

llcence, or performs a function connected with the Installation, modific:atlon, maintenance. repair, ovemaul, flight checking or 

Inspection of equipment on the ground which Is used or Intended to be used for the purpose of or in connedion with provision of 

an air lr'affic control servioe or navigational aid of an aircraft. 

IAA Aeronautical Notice A.30. pursuant to Article 8 of the Irish Aviation Authority Airworthiness of Aircraft Order details reporting 

requirements for Irish registered aircraft delegated in accordance with an ICAO Article 83bis agreement. 

S.l. No. 61 of 2006 Irish Aviation Authority (Open~tions) Order, 2006 gives effect to JAR.OPs 3.<420 which details reporting 

requirements for commercial air transpoftation helicopter operators.. 

Aeronautical NoCice A.30 includes requirements for opetators of delegated aircraft to report to the IAA. This A.N. shal be r8VIS8d 

to reflect the reporting channels outlined In thiS document. 
Fra: Steve Colman [mailto:sdcolman@hotmail.com] 

Sendt: 11. januar 2013 16:23 

Til: Nodeland, Stein Erik; postmottak 

Kopi: Erikstad, Ole Martin; Schj01berg, Einar; Abelsen, Petter; Olsen, Wenche; Myklebust, Karin Isabell; 

Ingebrigtsen, J0rgen; Pettersen, Ashild; Iversen, Tor 0. 

Emne: Norwegian Air Shuttle/Norwegian Long Haul- EU Ops 1.175 Appendix 2 (a) 

Dear Director Nodeland, 

Re: NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE/NORWEGIAN LONG HAUL - MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY 

I wish to make a formal complaint against the administration of Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) and Norwegian 

Long Haul (NLH). Specifically, company Post Holders; DFO Thomas Hesthammer, DDFO Ole Melhus, CP Jan 

Christoffersen, Norwegian Long Haul DFO, Torstein Haas. Upon any investigation, the competency of other 

Post Holders and/or 'managers' may be questioned. 

EU Ops 1.175 Appendix 2 (a) states: ''nominated Post Holders must have managerial competency" 

My treatment by the Norwegian administration as detailed below caused me much added stress during the 

execution of my flying duties. On one occasion I reported sick due to overstress. Should there be any 

accident or incident involving a Norwegian Air Shuttle/Norwegian Long Haul aircraft at any location, the 

investigating authority involved will be obliged to determine if the pilots and/or cabin crew were under 

similar administrative induced stress, and if it was a contributory factor to the cause of the accident or 

incident. Clearly, this matter is a grave public safety concern. 

After I submitted several feedback safety reports, below, the Norwegian began retaliatory and punitive 

action against me and eventually terminated my employment on December 31. No reason whatsoever was 

given for this decision. Please note: I passed my last OPC simulator check with NAS/NLH on December 20, 

my last flight as captain was on December 29. During my 8-month tenure with the airline as Captain, I 

documented and collated all reports, communication and work rosters. Additionally, I also obtained over 30 

other rosters of Helsinki based pilots to compare and support my claim. 

Norwegian is legislatively required to implement and comply with the following programmes: 

1. EU Ops 1.035 Quality System- ':4 feedback system to ensure corrective action is taken as necessary" 

2. EU Ops 1.037 Accident Prevention Flight Safety Programme- "a reporting scheme to address deficiencies 

in the interest of flight safety" - "such a programme will be non-punitive" 

Norwegian's company policy in the Norwegian CAA approved Operation Manual part A (OM A), 1.4.1 states: 

"[the commander] on his own initiative/ makes suggestions for improvement". 

The above programmes are in place at Norwegian, sadly, it is my experience they are a sham. Norwegian 

continuously solicits feedback from it's pilots, however, no warning is given of Norwegian's retaliatory and 

punitive action against any individual who might dare to submit feedback perceived as negative. I submitted 

the following feedback to effect an improvement in safety, offer constructive suggestions and enable 

Norwegian to more fully comply with current legislation: 

1. Extended Duty- additional crew rest requirement/fatigue factors (time zone and calculation) OM A 1.1.1-

7.8 and EU Ops Q, 2.6 - 3.2 - 3.5 - 3.6. 

Sent to: 

Chief Pilot Christoffersen, who rejected my report and stated "This is how we do things at Norwegian". 

2. Flight Plan/Dispatch Release - requirement for PIC to sign manually or electronically and leave a copy on 
departure- EU Ops 1.140 (b) 

Sent to: 

EFB manager. DDFO Melhus then sent several email with bold and underlined text to admonish me that it 

was not a requirement. After I contacted the Norwegian CAA, it wasconfirmed that 

I as correct and the DDFO was wrong. Several email exchanges reveal the DDFO to be particularly frustrated 

by the facts of my report and in one email he asks if I have contacted the CAA. A subsequent email from 

the DDFO suggests that he hold me personally responsible for the delay in the entirely 'paperless' cockpit 

concept at Norwegian. 

3 EFB, both fail, NO checklist in QRH - EU Ops 1.210 (b)- note: QRH has yet to be amended. 

Sent to: 

Training Manager, Stig Larsen - ignored/rejected 

4. Flight Plan (NLH) - method of calculation - wind errors - EU Ops 1.255 and EASA ETOPS approval and 

AMC 20-6 - 7.1 (ii) B. 

Sent to: NLH Training Manager, Torstein Faaberg - ignored/rejected. 

5. Route qualification of crew MNPS/North Atlantic Line Training- EU Ops 1.975 (a) 

Sent to: 

NLH Training Manager Torstein Faaberg - ignored/rejected. 

6. A report detailing the systemic corruption I witnessed by the Thai Cabin Chiefs during my tenure as Chief 

Pilot for a Thai charter airline. 

Sent to: 

NLH DFO Torstein Hoas - ignored/rejected. 

After submitting the reports I noticed changes in the way I was treated by Norwegian, not limited to but 

including:-

!.Vacation refused due to not having accrued days- other Helsinki pilots given vacation almost immediately 

after joining. 

2.Before days off, ending duty very late or after last flight to permit commute home, causing me to use a 

day off to travel- other pilots ending duty early to permit travel home on same day. 

3.After days off, starting duty very early in the morning causing me to travel on my day off the day before -

other pilots starting duty late to permit travel on same day. 

4.Rostered for 20 hours 35 minutes and 16 hours 30 minutes of standby duty in two separate 24-hour 

periods- no other pilot rostered for such excessive duty. 

5.A day owing was not appended to a block of 4 to make 5. The day owing was used as part of a regular 4 

day block - other pilots owed a day were given 5 days off. 

6.Before start of vacation, rostered to end duty at midnight - other pilots finished duty early, were on 

standby or day off. 

7.My preferred base assignment given to pilots with less seniority. 

8.Post flight rest disturbed by OCC by a direct telephone call to my hotel room (mobile phone switched off to 

enable rest), to notify me of standby duty the next day outside of my standby period. 

9.An entirely false accusation of not answering my telephone while on standby duty. My service provider was 

contacted and confirms no telephone calls were ever received from OCC during period in question. 

10.Instructed by the Chief Pilot not to telephone Crew Planning -other pilots telephoned daily to make 

'deals' with Crew Planning regarding their rosters. 

11.Doctors certificate required after reporting sick - other pilots were off for two-weeks without having to 

provide a Doctors certificate. 

12.The day before my days off for the Christmas Holidays I was assigned duty for ONE day as First Officer to 

finish duty 20 minutes after the last flight home for the entire Christmas period. 

13.An email form the manager of crew planning confirms that intentional manual entries beyond the scope 

of current regulations were made into my roster. 
Also, the Helsinki pilots were informed by DFO Hesthamer that we would also be flying for Norwegian Long 

Haul (NLH). All Helsinki pilots received a patronizing email from NLH DFO Hoas to welcome us and promise 

"great benefits". I am type-rated and experienced on the B744/747 /777/767/757/727/737 /DC8/L1011 and 

have thousands of hours long-haul and ETOPS. I applied to Norwegian Long Haul for the 8787 and included 

supporting documents and reference letters. My application was acknowledged as received. Meanwhile, NLH 

hired pilots with no ETOPS or long-haul experience whatsoever. The NLH DFO office shares the same floor in 

Fornebue as those of NAS DFO, DDFO and CP. I contend that Norwegian Long haul DFO, Torstein Hoas has 

been complicit in effecting retaliatory and punitive action against me, viz:-

14.Despite holding extensive qualifications and experience, my application to Norwegian Long Haul 787 fleet 

was summarily rejected. I contend as retaliatory, punitive action. 

I submitted all of the reports to the Chief Pilot and informed him of the fear culture that has become 

entrenched at Norwegian. Crew are reluctant to assert information for fear of being reported and becoming 

the subject of malicious gossip at the Fornebue offices and receive retaliatory, punitive action. Consequently, 

sufficient information may not be available to the crew to effect the safest option. This may lead to crew 

performing the wrong checklist and taking entirely the wrong action. Such events have already occurred at 

Norwegian. The Chief Pilot did not respond to my report, however, he paraphrased some of my observations 

and used them as his own in a recent article in the company Flight Safety magazine. 

I also forwarded all of the above safety reports, my observations and my concerns to the Safety Manager, 

Hans Herdahl, who did not respond. It is apparent that Norwegian are selective from whom they will 

consider safety related information. Inter-office gossip, personal or character dislikes should never be the 

criteria on which a report relating to safety is given consideration. 

DFO Thomas Hesthammer sent an email to all pilots (see attached DFO email to NAS pilots) to refute a 

report sent to the media anonymously in which many of the issues above were included (I am not the 

author of that report). I contacted the DFO to inform him that I had reported many of the same issues and 

was now the subject of retaliatory and punitive retribution. The DFO replied on December 19, "I regret to 

hear that you have experienced punitive action against you. This is absolutely not how we shall behave" - "I 

will follow up with CP and Flight Safety as well as Crew Plan and we should be able to give you an adequate 

answer" (see attached Dec 19). 

The "adequate answer" on December 20, "We kindly ask you to leave your uniform effects, manual and ID 

card etc, to Base Chief Pilot Per Arne Schroeder on last working day" - "We wish you the best of luck and 

thank you for your time at Norwegian"- "Based on information given to me by Crew Plan" (see attached Dec 

20). No reason for my termination has been given. 

Additionally, if Norwegian believes it can abuse staff based in the USA in a similar manner when it begins 

operations to New York, it may expect very immediate enlightenment and severe repercussions. Not only will 

Norwegian feel the full weight of US Federal Government anti-discrimination labour laws, it will incur the 

wrath and associated industrial action from the biggest and most powerful labour group in the world, the 

Teamsters Union, whose members handle most of the baggage at USA airports. 

In conclusion, the shameful conduct of Norwegian's administration and the potential catastrophic affect on 

public safety, were it to continue, is now a matter of record. I will also be making a formal complaint to the 

Norwegian Department of Transport and Communications, the UK CAA, EASA and the FAA. Due to the fact 

that similar matters were reported by a national Norwegian daily newspaper and flately refuted by DFO 

Thomas Hesthammer, I will be contacting that newspaper to confirm that most of the issues are in fact true. 

Please contact me if you require any additional information and/or you wish me to attend your offices to file 

this complaint in person. 

Yours sincerely, 

captain Stephen Colman 
Luftfartstilsynet / Civil Aviation Authority

T: +47 75 58 50 00 Postadresse: Besøksadresse: Fakturaadresse: Fakturamottak DFØ 

F: +47 75 58 50 05 Postboks 243 Sjøgata 45-47 Postboks 4104

E: postmottak@caa.no 8001 BODØ 8006 BODØ fakturamottak@caa.no 2307 HAMAR

Samferdselsdepartementet

Postboks 8010 Dep

0030 OSLO

Vår saksbehandler: Einar Schjølberg

Telefon direkte: +47 9826 1841

Vår dato: 18. februar 2013

Vår referanse: 201201583-13/400/ESC

Deres dato:

Deres referanse: 13/107

Samferdselsdepartementet - henvendelse om Norwegian Air Shuttle 

angående EU-OPS

Vedlagt oversendes kopi av brev sent Kapt. Steve Coleman.

Som det fremgår av brevet har Luftfartstilsynet gjort en vurdering av de påstander som Kapt. 

Coleman har framsatt i sin E-Mail av 18-1-2013.

Det er også avholdt et møte med ledelsen i NAS hvor an del av disse påstandene ble framlagt 

selskapet. 

Selskapet har lagt fram bevis for tiltak opp mot noen av de forhold som er framsatt. Dette går i 

all hovedsak på en kraftig styrkning av management med flere assisterende management 

poster i selskapet. Man er også i prosess med innføring av nytt rapporterings system i 

selskapet. Andre forhold som tas opp av Kapt. Coleman er imidlertid av en slik personlig 

karakter at de ikke faller inn under Luftfartstilsynets ansvarsområde. 

Luftfartstilsynet har som kjent gjennomført inspeksjoner av selskapet i henhold til plan gjennom 

2012 samt at EASA ved sin standardiserings inspeksjon sommeren 2012 også gjennomførte en 

inspeksjon av selskapet. Det ble ved disse inspeksjonene ikke avdekket noen forhold som kom 

inn under kategori “Safety Hazards”.

Med vennlig hilsen

Stein Erik Nodeland Einar Schjølberg

luftfartsdirektør avdelingsdirektør
 

     

      

  

               

           



   

      

  











    

        

     

     

       

     

     

     

      

     

  

    

   

      

       

     

      