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

AMA Drone Report

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday

Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne-Unmanned w/AUVSI

Airborne On ANN

AMA 03.23.17

Airborne
03.27.17

Airborne
03.28.17

Airborne
03.29.17

Airborne
03.23.17

Airborne 03.24.17

Airborne-Unmanned 03.28.17

Airborne-YouTube

AMA 03.23.17

Airborne
03.27.17

Airborne
03.28.17

Airborne
03.29.17

Airborne
03.23.17

Airborne 03.24.17

Airborne-Unmanned 03.28.17

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 03.27.17: Continental Motors ‘Overhaul’, Amazon Rotor, SpaceX DroneShip

Also: Boom Supersonic, Boeing 747-8, Boeing Grant, IKE's 300,000th, Rocket Lab, Duncan Aviation, Xplorer Mini Continental Motors seems to have a lot of faith in the future of aviat>[...]

Airborne 03.28.17: Dynon ADS-B/WX Recvrs, B-29 'Doc' Touring!, Atlanta Tech

Also: Safety Focus, Aero-Calendar, Mechanic Pay, Alaska Airlines, GAMA, CA Aviation Hall Of Fame, Gogo Biz 4G Dynon’s new dual band SV-ADSB-472 receives ADS-B traffic via 978>[...]

Racing Aircraft 'Hot Stuff' Involved In Runway Accident Won't Be Racing

Scratches The Airplane From National Air Race In Reno The iconic World Cup winner and Formula 1 Air Racer "Hot Stuff", flown by Thom Richard will not be participating in the 2017 R>[...]

The European Union And South Asia Strengthen Ties In Civil Aviation

New Technical Cooperation Project Managed By EASA Unveiled The European Union (EU) and South Asian states recently celebrated the launch of a new project to enhance their ties in c>[...]

AD: The Boeing Company Airplanes

AD Number: 2017-06-09 Product: Certain Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2017 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC