Oppenheimer aircraft inspection leads to hearing

Two SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) inspectors are facing a disciplinary hearing after they conducted a safety inspection at Fireblade Aviation, the Oppenheimer family’s commercial VIP aviation company.

According to aviation insiders, the two inspectors, Johann Hattingh and Tamlin Govender, are now being thrown under the bus after they were apparently ordered by the authority to do the inspection after the SACAA received a whistle-blower’s complaint regarding a contract with the Zambian government.

Fireblade in turn objected to the SACAA’s higher authorities about the inspection after it became clear that the inspectors were aware of the details and name of the whistle-blower and his report.

Inspectors are supposed to be unbiased when an inspection is done yet they were supplied with the report beforehand.

The whistle-blower is still employed by Fireblade.

He apparently aired concerns about how Fireblade handled a contract to provide a helicopter and pilots in November 2022 for President Hakainde Hichilema’s by-election campaign in Zambia.

Two of Fireblade’s most experienced helicopter pilots, Johnny Laing and Fanie Jordaan, have left the company after the debacle became an issue within the company, aviation sources told Business Day. Arnold Meyer, executive chair of the Oppenheimers’ Nianova group of entities, including Fireblade, confirmed to Business Day that the two pilots were dismissed on “early retirement”.

He said the inspectors arrived at Fireblade in January after they were apparently dispatched by the SACAA to “shake down” the company. They did not have an appointment and after demanding insight into certain documentation, Fireblade wrote a letter to the SACAA to formally request the guidelines for the inspection.

At the heart of the concerns about the Zambian contract was that the Agusta A109 helicopter was provided under part 91 of the SACAA regulations. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, which provides the legal framework, also contained in the SA aviation act and regulations, determines that an operator can only provide flights for noncommercial operations without payment under part 91.

It mostly provides for aircraft owners’ private flights, and the flight rules and regulations are more lenient.

As noncommercial operations, the operator is also unable to receive compensation or reimbursement for flights. The moment a flight or contract for flights is paid for, it becomes a commercial transaction conducted under part 127, which regulates commercial helicopter operations of passengers and cargo for payment.

Strict regulations about the minimum number of crew and flight and duty hours apply to such commercial flights. Meyer confirmed Fireblade was paid for the contract.

Business Day understands that the total amount for almost six weeks of flying was about $200,000. A single pilot was provided for the flights, and he was relieved by another pilot after about two weeks.

According to aviation specialists, it basically meant that a single pilot had to fly according to the whim of Hichilema’s organisers and at all times needed to be ready. Under part 127, the flight duty hours of a pilot are restricted with prescribed compulsory resting hours — especially when a VIP such as a president and other passengers are transported.

The deal was further complicated because it was handled via a broker who also signed the contract with the Zambians. The broker, however, did not have an air operator’s certificate at the time. Yet the pilots used were from Fireblade and were paid by Fireblade, obscuring the deal even further.

HIGH RISK

One commercial operator said the regulations are there for the specific reason of ensuring flight safety within legal prescriptions. “We don’t try to find loopholes to conduct our business, because flying charters is a high-risk environment which can quickly become extremely complicated when anything goes wrong.

“For insurance purposes, one would also want to minimise risks, otherwise it can become costly when an accident occurs or anyone gets injured if the insurance company finds the flight took place outside of the regulations.”

Leigh Kretzschmar, MD of Fireblade, told Business Day the company believes it operated within the paradigms of the law. She said the deal was structured as a lease operating under part 91. It all depends on the needs of the“client. It is not uncommon and we have done it before.”

Responding on the question about whether the operation was queried by Oppenheimer Generations’ head office, she said Fireblade is an independent business entity which does not answer to anyone else. She confirmed that Laing was considered Nicky Oppenheimer’s private pilot.

She did not know the broker company nor how the payments were structured, and promised to provide answers later.

In a follow-up email, however, she stated that “your questions pertain to a legal matter that is currently being investigated by the SACAA for which we cannot disclose more information. As indicated in our discussion, Fireblade Aviation strictly adheres and upholds the regulations set out by the SACAA.

“We continue to wait for the outcome and finalisation of the investigation and will continue to comply with the authorities on this matter as required.”

When questioned about the reasons for the internal disciplinary hearing of the two inspectors Sisa Majola, spokesperson for the SACAA, stated: “The relationship between the SACAA and its employees is governed by internal policies that protect the interest of both parties.

“We are therefore not in a position to divulge details concerning the relationship of the SACAA and its employees to any other party.”