The Public Prosecution Service (OM) North Holland has made a decision in the criminal investigation into an aviation company with branches in Den Helder and Emmer-Compascuum. The OM has decided to discontinue the cases against three suspects – the company, the owner, and a manager – due to insufficient legal and convincing evidence. The case against another employee had already been discontinued earlier when it was found that there was no longer any suspicion against her.
The investigation into the aviation company - by the Infrastructure Service and the aviation police of the National Unit - began with information that came in at the Criminal Intelligence Team (TCI) of the Intelligence and Investigation Service (IOD) of the Inspectorate of the Environment and Transport (ILT). It was revealed that, among other things, uncertified parts had been used, and parts whose lifespan had been exceeded. This was allegedly covered up with false certificates. Furthermore, maintenance was not always performed by mechanics with the correct license, and maintenance reports were sometimes signed off without the work being checked. This raised suspicions of forgery, unairworthy maintenance, and still flying nonetheless. It particularly concerned one helicopter from the company, which the investigation was then focused on.
That helicopter was seized. A team of experts from the Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR) examined the administration of the helicopter. More than a month and a half later, the seizure was lifted because no points of reference could be obtained from the companys administration for technical research. These points of reference were necessary because the information received by the TCI did not describe specific parts. The ILT subsequently inspected the helicopter and judged that it could be safely returned to use.
The report from the experts of the NLR concluded that the shortcomings in the companys administration were such that, based on European regulations, there was a non-airworthy helicopter, with the caveat that there was room for explanation and/or clarification regarding certain findings. The OM allowed the defense to respond in writing to the report. In light of that response, the OM concluded that part of the findings were dismissed, part could not be assessed, and part remained. What remained was the doubt about the airworthiness of the helicopter during two flights at the end of 2022 based on European rules.
Regarding the interpretation of those rules, the OM sought advice from the European aviation organization EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency). EASA advised that the shortcomings should be assessed by the national supervisor of the Netherlands, the ILT. The OM attempted to initiate this, but the examining magistrate rejected it. Unlike the OM, the examining magistrate was of the opinion that the inspectors of the ILT were insufficiently independent in this specific case to answer the questions of the OM: they had all previously dealt with the company. The OM disagrees with that decision - the interpretation of the European rules by the inspectors would be mainly of a general nature - but accepts it in light of the time elapsed and the fact that no new shortcomings have emerged from various inspections by the ILT. Without the explanation from the ILT, the OM believes there is insufficient certainty about the interpretation and application of the European rules in this specific case. Therefore, the OM concludes that there is insufficient evidence for the suspicions.