FAA Proposes $624,000 Civil Penalty Against Steele Aviation Of Beverly Hills, CA | 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 Unlimited-01.21.19

Airborne Unmanned-01.22.19

Airborne Unlimited-01.16.19

AMA Drone Report-01.17.19

Airborne Unlimited-01.18.19

Airborne-YouTube

Airborne Unlimited-01.21.19

Airborne Unmanned-01.22.19

Airborne Unlimited-01.16.19

AMA Drone Report-01.17.19

Airborne Unlimited-01.18.19

Mon, Dec 10, 2018

FAA Proposes $624,000 Civil Penalty Against Steele Aviation Of Beverly Hills, CA

Company Allegedly Conducted Illegal Passenger-Carrying Flights

The FAA has proposed a $624,000 civil penalty against Steele Aviation of Beverly Hills, CA for allegedly conducting illegal passenger-carrying flights.

This is the second civil penalty the FAA has proposed against Steele during the past year for allegedly conducting unauthorized operations.

In the latest case, the FAA alleges that between October 2016 and February 2018, Steele conducted 16 for-hire flights when the company did not have the air carrier certificate required for these operations. The flights involved transporting the same paying passenger between various points in Southern, Central and Northern California, and to Seattle, on a Cessna Citation CE-551 jet and a Hawker HS-125-800 jet.

The FAA alleges the operations were careless and reckless so as to endanger lives or property.

Two of the flights occurred after the FAA proposed the earlier civil penalty against Steele. In that case, the FAA alleged Steele operated a Gulfstream IV and a British Aerospace 125 on at least 78 for-hire passenger-carrying flights between Sept. 17, 2015 and June 13, 2016 when neither aircraft was listed on an air carrier certificate. The FAA further alleged the pilots who conducted the majority of these flights did not meet applicable training requirements for that type of operation.

Steele has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s latest enforcement letter to respond to the Agency.s

(Source: FAA news release)

FMI: www.faa.gov

Advertisement

More News

Airborne 01.18.19: Pipistrel Adventurer, Airlander 10, Iridium NEXT

Also: Canadian Filmmaker Opposed to New Regs, EMAS Technology, BRS Aerospace, VSE Aviation Acquires 1st Choice One hundred years ago, in 1919, saw the first successful flight from >[...]

Airborne-Unmanned 01.15.19: New CA Regs, State Farm Waiver, Indemnis Chute

Also: Heathrow Drone Sighting, DJI Smart Remote Controller, Hydrogen Multi-Rotor UAV, Northwest UAV Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, has announced Canada’s new rules for >[...]

AMA Drone Report 01.17.19: DJI Smart Controller, UVify Swarm, Indemnis Chute

Also: Heathrow Drone Paranoia, GDU SAGA, New UK Drone Regs, State Farm Waiver DJI introduced a new remote controller for its drones at CES 2019. The Smart Controller features an ul>[...]

Airborne 01.21.19: SubSonex Upgraded!, Aero Club Of Atlanta, Snow v Citation

Also: Aerocor-Apex Aviation, Sikorsky Presents $ To Make-A-Wish, Chinese Av Mkt, JetBlue Donating One of the coolest little sportplanes to ever work its way out of the feverish and>[...]

Airborne 01.21.19: SubSonex Upgraded!, Aero Club Of Atlanta, Snow v Citation

Also: Aerocor-Apex Aviation, Sikorsky Presents $ To Make-A-Wish, Chinese Av Mkt, JetBlue Donating One of the coolest little sportplanes to ever work its way out of the feverish and>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2019 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC