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--08.19.19

Airborne UnManned--08.20.19

Airborne Unlimited--08.21.19

AMA Drone Report--08.22.19

Airborne Unlimited--08.23.19

Airborne-YouTube

Airborne Unlimited--08.19.19

Airborne UnManned--08.20.19

Airborne Unlimited--08.21.19

AMA Drone Report--08.22.19

Airborne Unlimited--08.23.19

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 08.23.19: 'Starman' Intercept?, Paraglider, World Aerobatics

Also: Boeing 737 MAX Panel, FAA Warns Aboout AOA Sensors, Mission To Jupiter, Aviation Coalition Earlier this week, we said somewhat tongue-in-cheek that Elon Musk might try to rec>[...]

Airborne-Unmanned 08.20.19: ROBOpilot First Flight, Amazon Petition, EHang Test

Also: Saildrone Circumnavigates Antarctica, Falcon Research Project, AUVSI Innovation Challenge, Drone Traffic Testing The Air Force Research Laboratory and DZYNE Technologies succ>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (08.25.19)

Aero Linx: ANGEL FLIGHT SOARS Located at the Dekalb Peachtree Airport, ANGEL FLIGHT SOARS (TM) was formed by Jim Shafer in 1983 as a loosely organized group of volunteer pilots tha>[...]

AMA Drone Report 08.22.19: AMA Reg Update, FAA Stakeholder Input, SkyPixel-DJI

Also: AIR PIX Selfie Drone, Another NIMBY City, Drone Food Delivery, 'Monumental' Drone LIDAR Map While the Federal regulatory scene is getting a LOT of attention from AMA theses d>[...]

Airborne 08.23.19: 'Starman' Intercept?, Paraglider, World Aerobatics

Also: Boeing 737 MAX Panel, FAA Warns Aboout AOA Sensors, Mission To Jupiter, Aviation Coalition Earlier this week, we said somewhat tongue-in-cheek that Elon Musk might try to rec>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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