# 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 Tr ansport 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 declar ation detailing the fact s of my tenure as a contract Captain with the Norwegian regime.

Much has been proclaimed by Norwegian in re gard 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 distinc tion between employee and contract worker.

I received two agency contracts with Norwegia n. Each contract contai ned the stipulation I could not hold the lessee airline, No rwegian, responsible as the employer (ref item 4). Several legal jurisdictions were applicable to the working rela tionship (ref item 5).

In reference to safety, discre pancy or whistle-blowing reports , European and local Member State labor laws, including av iation regulations, refer specifi cally to an employer/employee relationship. Therefore, any tr ansgression 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, notwith standing, 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 kn owledge are not subjected to any prejudice by their employer ”.

A contract crew member has neither protecti on nor redress from any punitive/discriminatory action by Norwegian. Consequently, contract cr ew 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 ea rlier 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 right s 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 workermay not have his employment terminated unless there is a valid reason connected with the workers aptit ude 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 declar ation. 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 Norw egian’s application for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit, but also necessitate a review of thei r 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 c ontract pilot for Norweg ian Air Shuttle, and Norwegian Long Haul. My declaration identifi es the significant pr oblems 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 Transpor t Pilot Licenses (ATPL) issued by various authorities, including by the United Kingdom.

3. I responded to a Norwegian Air Shuttle (“Norw egian” 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 cont ract 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 Sw edish 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 Kingdo m, while Norwegian has its corporate headquarters/principal place of business in Norway. As can be seen, s everal 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 cr ew member identification badge with the abbreviation ‘Empl’ (employee) with numb er, 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 woul d operate from my Helsinki base. I was not given a choice, and was ne ither 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 suggest ions for improvements. ” Norwegian, including its CEO, continually so licits safety information from its crew: “ It is of great importance to the co mpany that you have confidence to share your experiences with us. ”

10. Encouraged by these company policies that pur ported 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 Directiv e 2003/42/EC, Annex 1 B (ii) (a) and (f), as a Mandatory Occurrence Repor t. 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 De puty Director of Flight Oper ations (DFO), demanded to know if I had contacted CAA Norway.

11. Following my safety/operational discrepanc y 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 cont ract, no other Captain was terminated and Norwegian was placing advertisements for, a nd actively recruiting p ilots, 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, in cluding 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 re sponded that NAS/NLH management had addressed the issues of my re ports. However, the Director General of CAA Norway was categorically unwilling to consider any r eason, 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 Operati ons 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 s ubmitted details of my safety/operational discrepancy reports, treatment and termin ation by Norwegian, to the following bodies:

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

“The Norwegian CAA is the body responsible fo r collecting of safety related information, safety oversight and law enforcement in th e 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 Gatwic k does not alter the responsibility of the Norwegian authority fo r 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 ope rates or where the commander is based or employed but which state ensures safety ov ersight, 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 [w ith 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 i ssue 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 No rwegian Airline Group and ARPI Aviation Norway disclosed my personal data, including my bank deta ils and account numbers, to third parties without my express permission. Those third parties then disclosed that information to other third parties without my co nsent. Such action is in violation of the Norway Personal Data Act.

21. The Norway Personal Data Act provides th at upon request to en tities holding their personal data, a person shall receive informati on 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. Necessa ry requests were made to both Norwegian and ARPI Aviation Norway Human Resource manage rs. To date, neither has replied.

22. The actions of Norwegian and ARPI Aviation No rway 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 hum an 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 imp lied I may expect legal repercussions for breach of contract were I to file any claim fo r 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 wh ich 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 Norweg ian Airline Group, and th erefore is without union and Norway legal protections, has no re dress 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 app lications 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 A ugust, 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.kame n@united.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com;

chris.walker@delta.com; Andrea.N ewman@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.co m; jesse.elliot@faa.gov;

douglas.schwab@faa.gov; nicholas.tsokr is@faa.gov; john.y.chen@faa.gov;

anita.mosner@hklaw.com; jennifer.no wak@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@e lfaa.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 declarati on 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 legi slation 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 – Arti cle 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 – Legi slation 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 declarat ion submitted August 18 (OST-2013-0204-0142):

11. Following my safety/operational discrepanc y 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: Worboy s David ( Labour Market) ( Dav e

. W o rb oys @ bi s

. gs i

. gov

. u k ) Sent: W e d 6 11 1 / 14 8: 3 7AM
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 ARP I 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 inco r po r ated in Po l and

. 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 i n Great Britain does not app l y 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 agains t ARP I Aviation Poland Sp. Z.o.o

..

If you have any documentary evidence that the L ondon branch of ARPI has passed on your information not for the purposes of work

- finding, I wil l be happy to go back to Mr Tan em and ask him for an explanation

.

I am sorry to be sending you what wil l 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 h i gher skills across the economy

. BIS : 

### w o rk i n g t ogethe r fo r g r o wthIf 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 theMember 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 onoccurrences 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 shalladopt 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-reportingsystem 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 ofvoluntary 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 L 167/25 Official Journal of the European Union EN

( 1 ) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. re not subjected to any prejudice by their emp l o y er

. In accordance with the procedures defined in their p national laws and p ractices, Member States shall ensure tha t employees who report incidents of which they may have p yy p y knowledge ar A rti cl e 8

# ...**+** 

# IAA

Commercial Aviation

• You are here :


### • tiS!!!!l

• Commercial Ayiafion

• Safety Report i ng

• l egislation & Regulaloly Framework 

# Legislation and Regulatory Framework

ICAO Annex 13 Chapter 8 de ta ils the Standards and Recommended Prac1ices ( SARPs ) f or Inciden t reporting

, database stontge , lnvestigatJon and exchange of inciden1 data

. Ireland is a signaloly to the Chicago Conven t ion and therefore Ireland has Implemented the slllndards and recommended practices o f Annex 131hrough a combination of 

### EU and national 

### l aw

. EC Direct l w 20031 <4 2/EC

, on occurrence report i ng In civil aviation

, detalls t he requ i rements f or each EU member s t ate on mandatOI)' reporting

, colledion and storage , exchange

, dissemination and protection o f information

. It also ou t lines a voluntary**re~** system In compliance with the ICA O standard

. S

. l

. 265 of 2007 gives effect to EC Diredive 200 31 <42/E C on occurrence reporting I n 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

. I t also details that a report« lhal be protected from any discrimlnatOI)' action by their employer

.
EC RegulabOn 170 212 003 Part 21A.16S detah r eporting requ ir ements for approved production organisations.

EC Regulation 20<4212003 Part M A202 detail r eporting requirements for continu i ng ali\OIOithlness organisations and Part 1<4S.A.60 details reporting requ i rements for ma i n t enance organisations

. EC Regulation No 85912008 OPS 1

. <4 20 de t ails repor1lng requ i rements f or commercJat air transport airlines.

EC Regulation 209612005 Article 12 and annex II sact i on 3

. 1.2 details requ i remen t s for Air N avigation Service (ANS ) providers

. In edditlon IAA Notice S

. 02 • Reporting and assessment of safety occurrences I n AT M "

, pursuant to articles 3 and <4 of Irish Avtatlon Authority (Eurocontrol
Safety Regulatory Requirements Order 200 3
, ( S I. No

. 387 of 2003 ) gives effect to the reportJng requirements deta i led in ESARR
2 for All Traftlc Management Sefvices ( ATM )

IAA Aeronautical Noeice T

. OS

, pursuant to ArtJcles 8 and 23 of the I rish Aviation Authonty ( Aerodromes and Vosua l Ground Aids ) Order

, 2000
, ( S .I

. No

. 334 of 2000 )

, deta ils reponmg r equirements for peniOI1S who 8fe the licensee or manager of a licensed 8Cif0drome

, perlonns a fundion for which he requ i res a n 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 I ntended to be used for the purpose of or in connedion with provision o f

a n air lr'affic control servioe or navigational aid of an a i rcraft

.
IAA Aeronautical N o t ice A.30

. pursuant to Article 8 of the I ri sh Aviation Authority Airworth i ness of Aircraft Order details reporting
requ ir ements for Irish registe red aircraft delegated i n accordance with an I CAO Article 83bis agreement.

S

. l. No

. 61 of 2006 I rish Aviation Authority**(O pen~tions** **)** Order

, 2006 gives effect to JAR.OPs 3

. <4 20 which details reporting requirements for commercial air transpoftation helicopter operators..

Aeronautical NoCice A.30 includes requireme n ts for opetators of delegated aircraft to report to the IAA. This A.N

. shal be r8VIS8d

to reflect the reporting chann e ls 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 ondeparture- 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 ColmanLuftfartstilsynet / Civil Aviation Authority

T: +47 75 58 50 00 Postadresse: Besøksadresse: Fakturaadresse: Fakturamottak DFØ F: +47 75 58 50 05 Postboks 243 Sjøgata 45

- 4 7 Postboks 4 104 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 fram satt 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 kr aftig 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 i kke 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 a v 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        

 

 

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

              

  

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

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

     



                              

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



                                                

                    

                      

                                

                                   

             

        

                      

                  

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

                                                   

                           

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

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

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

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

                      

              

               

        

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

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

                     



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