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 On ANN

ADR 02.20.17

Airborne 02.20.17

Airborne 02.21.17

Airborne 02.22.17

Airborne 02.16.17

Airborne 02.17.17

Airborne-HD On YouTube

ADR 02.20.17

Airborne 02.20.17

Airborne 02.21.17

Airborne 02.22.17

Airborne 02.16.17

Airborne 02.17.17

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

AMA Drone Report 02.20.17: DJI & AMA Team Up, MultiGP, Drone Advisory Committee

Also: Another Dumb FL Drone Law, AMA Expo East!, Spaceport America Drone Summit DJI and AMA have launched a joint program to promote safe and responsible drone operations, train pu>[...]

Airborne 02.20.17: B787-10 Rollout, MultiGP Drone Racing, NIMBYs v Montauk

Also: Wright Prop, Full Stop!, Airbus Sued, Ellen Ochoa, Wright Trophy, New Embraer CEO, Bel Air AW189s The Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner, the third member of the 787 Dreamliner family,>[...]

Airborne 02.20.17: B787-10 Rollout, MultiGP Drone Racing, NIMBYs v Montauk

Also: Wright Prop, Full Stop!, Airbus Sued, Ellen Ochoa, Wright Trophy, New Embraer CEO, Bel Air AW189s The Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner, the third member of the 787 Dreamliner family,>[...]

AMA Drone Report 02.20.17: DJI & AMA Team Up, MultiGP, Drone Advisory Committee

Also: Another Dumb FL Drone Law, AMA Expo East!, Spaceport America Drone Summit DJI and AMA have launched a joint program to promote safe and responsible drone operations, train pu>[...]

AD: The Boeing Company Airplanes

AD NUMBER: 2017-02-09 PRODUCT: Certain Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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