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 -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.22.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.16.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-04.17.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-04.18.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.19.24

Join Us At 0900ET, Friday, 4/10, for the LIVE Morning Brief.
Watch It LIVE at
www.airborne-live.net

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

Airbus Racer Helicopter Demonstrator First Flight Part of Clean Sky 2 Initiative

Airbus Racer Demonstrator Makes Inaugural Flight Airbus Helicopters' ambitious Racer demonstrator has achieved its inaugural flight as part of the Clean Sky 2 initiative, a corners>[...]

Diamond's Electric DA40 Finds Fans at Dübendorf

A little Bit Quieter, Said Testers, But in the End it's Still a DA40 Diamond Aircraft recently completed a little pilot project with Lufthansa Aviation Training, putting a pair of >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.23.24): Line Up And Wait (LUAW)

Line Up And Wait (LUAW) Used by ATC to inform a pilot to taxi onto the departure runway to line up and wait. It is not authorization for takeoff. It is used when takeoff clearance >[...]

NTSB Final Report: Extra Flugzeugbau GMBH EA300/L

Contributing To The Accident Was The Pilot’s Use Of Methamphetamine... Analysis: The pilot departed on a local flight to perform low-altitude maneuvers in a nearby desert val>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: 'Never Give Up' - Advice From Two of FedEx's Female Captains

From 2015 (YouTube Version): Overcoming Obstacles To Achieve Their Dreams… At EAA AirVenture 2015, FedEx arrived with one of their Airbus freight-hauling aircraft and placed>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC