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 08.31.15

Airborne 09.01.15

Airborne 09.02.15

Airborne 09.03.15

Airborne 09.04.15

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 08.31.15

Airborne 09.01.15

Airborne 09.02.15

Airborne 09.03.15

Airborne 09.04.15

EAA/ANN AirVenture Innovation Preview

AIP-#1 Vimeo

AIP-#2 Vimeo

AIP-Part 1 YouTube

AIP-Part 2 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

Parsing The Model Aircraft Advisory Circular

Attorney Jonathan Rupprecht Finds Several Issues With The FAA's New AC On August 10, 2014 FAA accidentally canceled AC 91-57, which had been around for a little more than 34 years.>[...]

Rockwell Collins Debuts Pro Line Fusion For Commercial Helicopters

Avionics On Display At The China Helicopter Exposition Following integration into 20 aircraft ranging from business jets to military flight decks, Rockwell Collins will unveil Pro >[...]

Airborne 09.03.15: Falcon 9 Delayed, UAV 'Favor' Fined, Impounded In The UK

Also: Rob Holland's Gold, API: Innovative Aviation Content, Master Instructors, Wallops' New Launch Command Ctr, Webb Space Telescope, Satellite Broadband Network, Another FAA Fine>[...]

AeroSports Update: Cubs Vs Champs

In The Lee Bottom Flying Field Event Contest, Piper Cubs Win The First Round Of The Champs Vs Cubs Challenge Lee Bottom Flying Field, an airport favored by grassroots aviators, wil>[...]

AD: Vulcanair S.p.A. Airplanes

AD NUMBER: 2015-18-01 PRODUCT: Vulcanair S.p.A. Model P.68R airplanes.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2015 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC