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/NBAA2014 10.24.14 ** HD iPad-Friendly -- Airborne/NBAA2014 10.24.14 **
** Airborne/NBAA2014 10.22.14 ** HD iPad-Friendly -- Airborne/NBAA2014 10.22.14 **
** Airborne/NBAA2014 10.21.14 ** HD iPad-Friendly -- Airborne/NBAA2014 10.21.14 **
** Airborne/NBAA2014 10.20.14 ** HD iPad-Friendly -- Airborne/NBAA2014 10.20.14 **

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 10.24.14: AML's Innovations, NASA Preps For Mars, LightHawk Saves

Also: AW609 Pilots Honored, Airbus' VIP Cabin, FreeFlight's FTX-200, Quicksilver S-LSA Milestone During our visit this week to NBAA 2014, Jim Campbell had a chance to talk with Mar>[...]

Airborne at NBAA-10.22.14: Legacy 500, Universal InSight, BendixKing AeroWave

Also: GE Honda, Sagem's Active SideStick, Syberjet Update, Techno Aerospace Knows How to Party The FAA handed over certification papers for Embraer's Legacy 500 executive jet durin>[...]

Airborne 10.24.14: AML's Innovations, NASA Preps For Mars, LightHawk Saves

Also: AW609 Pilots Honored, Airbus' VIP Cabin, FreeFlight's FTX-200, Quicksilver S-LSA Milestone During our visit this week to NBAA 2014, Jim Campbell had a chance to talk with Mar>[...]

AD: Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

AD NUMBER: 2014-21-02 PRODUCT: Pacific Aerospace Limited Model FU24-954 and FU24A-954 airplanes.>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (10.25.14)

The Canard Zone An online forum by and for owners and builders of canard aircraft.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2014 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC