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 03.30.15

Airborne 03.31.15

Airborne 04.01.15

Airborne 03.26.15

Airborne 03.27.15

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 03.30.15

Airborne 03.31.15

Airborne 04.01.15

Airborne 03.26.15

Airborne 03.27.15

 

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 03.30.15: Provisional TC-HondaJet, NASA/Mars, Lightspeed's Bluetooth

Also: New York Airways 1962, Mica Wants Privatized ATC, Ares UAV, Textron ProAdvantage, Boeing SC Union Vote, Whirly Girls The Honda Aircraft Company has announced that the HondaJe>[...]

Gone West: Lt. Col. Robert Hite

Had Been One Of The Doolittle Raiders Who Attacked Tokyo In 1942 One of the last of the 80 men to climb aboard 16 B-25 bombers and launch from an aircraft carrier in April 1942 to >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (03.31.15)

Shawn Pederson - Road to Recovery Six months ago, Shawn "Norm" Pederson took the road less travelled. After retiring from a career of public service as United States Air Force pilo>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (03.31.15): Decision Height

With respect to the operation of aircraft, means the height at which a decision must be made during an ILS, MLS, or PAR instrument approach to either continue the approach or to ex>[...]

Aero-News: Quote Of The Day (03.31.15)

“NBAA is pleased that the FAA continues to recognize the importance of this tool to NBAA Member business aircraft owners seeking to maximize the efficiency and usability of a>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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