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

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 06.27.16

Airborne 06.28.16

Airborne 06.29.16

Airborne 06.23.16

Airborne 06.24.16

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 06.27.16

Airborne 06.28.16

Airborne 06.29.16

Airborne 06.23.16

Airborne 06.24.16

AEA2016 LIVE Aero-TV: 04/27-0830ET, 04/28-1400ET, 04/29-1100ET

Sun 'n Fun 2016 Innovation Preview on Vimeo!

Sun 'n Fun 2016 Innovation Preview on YouTube!

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 06.27.16: Blue Angels Return, LI UAV Ban, NJ Jet Fuel Tax

Also: Gone West-Thomas Wathen, Boeing 747-8, FAR 107 Course, Teamster Pilots, C Series, Yuneec Typhoon H, Embraer We are happy to announce that the U.S. Navy Blue Angels will retur>[...]

Airborne 06.24.16: ADS-B Analysis, NavWorx Price Drop, ALPA v Transport Canada

Also: Porker Of The Month, Aviation BBB?, Super Puma, AirVenture Events, FedEx 767s, Solar Impulse, Sikorsky Flight Safety Foundation has released the study "Benefits Analysis of S>[...]

Airborne 06.27.16: Blue Angels Return, LI UAV Ban, NJ Jet Fuel Tax

Also: Gone West-Thomas Wathen, Boeing 747-8, FAR 107 Course, Teamster Pilots, C Series, Yuneec Typhoon H, Embraer We are happy to announce that the U.S. Navy Blue Angels will retur>[...]

United, AFA Reach Agreement For Flight Attendants

Brings All FAs Into A Single Work Group For Collective Bargaining An agreement on terms of a joint contract that would bring the airline’s more than 25,000 flight attendants >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (06.28.16)

FAA Online N Number Registry Renewal This site is provided to allow the renewal of a currently reserved N-number.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2016 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC