vagabond

From Seattle PI:

Seattle-based Horizon Air operated 32 Bombardier Dash 8 airplanes on 49,870 flights with lighting that wasn't properly tested, the Federal Aviation Administration said in proposing a $777,000 fine Friday.
Horizon Air installed new external lighting systems on the aircraft, but did not conduct required tests for radio frequency and electromagnetic interference, the FAA said. It said the airline operated the airplanes between Oct. 19, 2009 and March 17, 2010, before the FAA discovered the issue during routine surveillance.
"Horizon immediately completed tests and inspections of all 32 aircraft before further flights," the agency said.
Horizon has 30 days to respond before the FAA finalizes the fine. Seattle's Alaska Air Group is the parent company of Horizon Air and Alaska Airlines. Horizon airplanes now fly with Alaska Airlines branding.
Responding to the proposed fine via email Friday, Alaska Airlines spokeswoman Marianne Lindsey said:

The external lighting system is called Pulse Light. It is an FAA-approved wing lighting system designed to increase aircraft visibility and reduce the incidence of bird strikes. Instead of steady illumination, the lights alternately dim and appear to pulse.
Horizon began installing this lighting system on its Bombardier Q400 aircraft in 2008. The alleged violation was discovered in March 2010 and involved 32 aircraft.
The alleged violation involved task cards used by our aircraft technicians that contain instructions for installing the lights. The information on the cards was based on the manufacturer's instructions. The FAA found that the task card instructions were incomplete and, as a result, two required tests were not conducted during installation.
Upon notification from the FAA, we immediately deactivated the lighting system on all of the affected aircraft and conducted the two tests, which determined that the lights were functioning normally.
The Pulselight system is currently in operation on 40 Q400 aircraft as we continue the installation on our fleet. The lights will be installed on eight remaining aircraft in 2012.
We are working cooperatively with the FAA to resolve this proposed penalty.

FlyJSH

Wow! In an effort to increase safety, they spend money on pulse lights, take the time to install them IAW manufacturer's instructions, then get fined. You gotta be kidding.

Hey, FAA, ever wonder why everybody hates you?

__________________
To think, I went from 135 to 121 for job security.

l1011

No kidding, The FAA is an F*****ng Joke!

pete2800

+1

+2

Honestly, if anyone should be getting fines, it's either the company who sold the lights/wrote the instructions, or the entity who authorized those parts to be installed on the aircraft. Hmm, I wonder who that would be? You know, that organization that oversees the safety of aviation in this country...

Hey FAA. How about instead of penalizing someone for buying and installing additional safety equipment in their airplanes as per the manufacturer instructions.... maybe focus on not being drunk driving delinquents?

Sincerely,
Common Sense and Morality.

block30

+1 to all posters here. Common sense and morality alright

__________________
Estimated active pilots as of 2010; 123,705 Commercial, 142,198 ATPs. Waiting on the shortage

Eck4Life

All this probably from the same FSDO (Hillsboro) that used to (may still) rubber stamp line captains' CFI renewal by saying they were giving 'training' to FO's during scheduled ops. Despite the fact that said captains hadn't participated in any sort of CFI renewal course and said FO's were among the most seasoned in the regional industry. All they had to do was show their company ID, licenses, and logbook as I recall. I don't remember any section of the FARs laying it out quite that way....

I used to think that all FSDOs judged by the same rules from a common book. I have since learned that each FSDO is a separate fifedom and that FARs can be interpreted in a subjective manner depending on which FSDO you are dealing with.

My favorite experience: I once called a FSDO to ask a question to clarify a FAR. The FAA guy responded instantly to my question, "We don't interpret the regs." That was the end of the phone call. He didn't want to commit to anything. My question to the agency and guys who work for it is, how do you enforce regs without interpreting them? You have to interpret the regs in some fashion in order to enforce them.

Classic.

__________________
Another bed bug is out of action!

Golden Bear

Slight digression, but just to clarify: many (but not all) FSDOs will renew a Part 121 or 135 PIC's CFI based not on training but on the "regular evaluation of pilots" clause of 61.197:

At my airline it is specifically dictated in our FOM that one of the responsibilities of the PIC is to mentor the F/O and facilitate their eventual movement to a command position, and we are also afforded the means to evaluate the F/Os we fly with should we be asked or feel compelled, for whatever reason.

Your airline does not have to have its operations based within the region of a certain FSDO for this to apply, just find one that does this and make an appointment. I know for a fact that ORD and OAK renew this way.

But yes, it is insane that not all FSDOs interpret this (or any other reg) in a consistent manner, and yes the QX fine is absurd and counterproductive to encouraging flight safety.

RI830

Looks like $770,000 to the Randy Babbitt DUI Denfense fund!

__________________
Is what it is....and ain't what it ain't!!