FAA Proposes Fines Against Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne Unlimited-
Monday

Airborne-Unmanned w/AUVSI-
Tuesday

Airborne Unlimited-
Wednesday

AMA Drone Report-
Thursday

Airborne Unlimited-
Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 02.19.18

Airborne-UnManned 02.20.18

Airborne 02.14.18

AMA Drone Report 02.15.18

Airborne 02.16.18

Airborne-YouTube

Airborne 02.19.18

Airborne-UnManned 02.20.18

Airborne 02.14.18

AMA Drone Report 02.15.18

Airborne 02.16.18

Fri, May 04, 2012

FAA Proposes Fines Against Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines

Says Horizon Failed To Comply With An AD On Certain Aircraft

The FAA announced it was assessing civil penalties against two Seattle-based airlines Thursday totalling over $600,000.

Horizon Air of Seattle is facing a $445,125 civil penalty for allegedly operating a Bombardier Dash-8-400 aircraft on 45 flights when it was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA alleges Horizon failed to comply with an airworthiness directive (AD) that required the airline to inspect for cracked or corroded engine nacelle fittings on its Dash-8-400 aircraft. The AD, with an effective date of March 17, 2011, ordered inspections of the nacelles every 300 operating hours, and repairs as needed.
 
Between March 17 and 23, 2011, Horizon operated the aircraft on at least 45 revenue passenger flights when it had accumulated more than 300 hours of flight time since its last inspection.

The agency also is proposing a civil penalty of $210,000 against Alaska Airlines of Seattle for allegedly failing to properly document and tag deactivated systems and equipment before making repairs.

The FAA alleged that on 10 occasions between June 19, 2010, and January 13, 2011, Alaska performed maintenance on six of its Boeing 737 airplanes but failed to comply with the required alternative deactivation procedures. Specifically, the airline allegedly failed to document the alternative actions it took, and failed to install the appropriate danger tag. These requirements are safety measures designed to reduce hazards to technicians during maintenance and to prevent potential damage to the aircraft and onboard systems.

Both carriers have 30 days from the receipt of the notice of penalty to respond to the FAA.

FMI: www.faa.gov

Advertisement

More News

Airborne 02.19.18: TruTrak Vizion Approvals, 737 MAX 9 Cert, Airplane Loan Scam

Also: Frasca Celebrates 60 Years, Klyde’s 40th!, European Plan For AvSafety, Texas Aviation Hall Of Fame The STC for the TruTrak Vizion autopilot has been updated to include >[...]

Airborne-Unmanned 02.13.18: FAA UAS Symposium, Airbus Delivers, Manned EHANG 184

Also: UAS Pilot Code, FAA Drone Program, SkyWatch Funding, Quantix Hybrid UAS For Farmers The FAA and AUVSI will co-host the 3rd Annual FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Symposiu>[...]

AMA Drone Report 02.15.18: AMA Expo East, Skydio R1, TSB Canada Report

Also: DJI Knowledge Quiz, GoFly Competition, Drone ID Rules Coming, FAA Unenthusiastic About Prosecuting? The Academy of Model Aeronautics will host the annual AMA Expo East at the>[...]

Airborne 02.19.18: TruTrak Vizion Approvals, 737 MAX 9 Cert, Airplane Loan Scam

Also: Frasca Celebrates 60 Years, Klyde’s 40th!, European Plan For AvSafety, Texas Aviation Hall Of Fame The STC for the TruTrak Vizion autopilot has been updated to include >[...]

Airborne-Unmanned 02.20.18: USMC InstantEye, Raleigh Reconsiders, Battle Drones

Also: Fortem DroneHunter, Solar-Powered Rover, Drone Mkt Worth $48.88B, MQ-25 Partnerships InstantEye Robotics has received a substantial order from PMA-263, the Navy and Marine Co>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2018 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC