Chautauqua Airlines Faces $348,000 Civil Pena
 

Chautauqua Airlines Faces $348,000 Civil Penalty


FAA Proposes Fine For Inspection Violations

The FAA has proposed a $348,000 civil penalty against Chautauqua Airlines for allegedly operating some of its regional jets without performing inspections required by five different FAA airworthiness directives (ADs).


FAA investigations found that problems with Chautauqua's management of its maintenance program and its system for tracking the status of airworthiness directives led to the alleged violations.
One AD compliance issue involved mandated repetitive inspections for possible cracks in the lower wing planks of Canadair Regional Jets (CRJ) after every 5,000 flights. The FAA alleges that:


Eight different Chautauqua CRJs conducted more than 9,900 flights between October 2007 and December 2008 before the required lower wing inspections were done.
In January 2009, the airline operated another CRJ on 231 flights without inspecting a different section of the lower wings for cracks and flew a different CRJ for 61 hours without a required inspection of electrical relays.


Another Chautauqua CRJ made more than 17,600 flights between November 2007 and January 2009 before mandatory inspections of the plane's GE engines were performed. Chautauqua also flew one of its Embraer 145 regional jets for 43 days past the time one of its inertial navigation units should have been replaced.

"An air carrier's maintenance program can't function without a good system to determine compliance with airworthiness directives," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. "Problems with the AD system are inconsistent with an airline's continued safe operation."
Chautauqua has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA's civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.


FMI: FAA: Home


To be clear the pilots have nothing to do with this, I posted this article, because this clearly illustrates where some of the cost savings came from for the CAL operation. This is no way to do business BB should be ashamed. I hope this isn't how he's planning on running the new and improved Frontier.

To be clear the pilots clearly have nothing to do with this, I posted this article, because this clearly illustrates where some of the cost savings came from for the CAL operation. This is no way to do business BB should be ashamed. I hope this isn't how he's planning on running the new and improved Frontier.
[/quote]


Agreed! Shame on management:mad:

Seems odd to me that the Administrator himself would comment on this when it's usually left to some PR person.

Without a doubt, such actions merit such response, wouldn't you agree? I think Babbitt went easy on them. Nice to see the Feds doing their jobs for a change.

I've seen Babbitt comment on plenty of stories since he took the reins. I think he's trying to keep involved with the FAA's current events and to also establish a certain bit of name recognition, maybe...

I know y'all want to throw management to the fire. You'd probably not mind throwing your maintenance department on the flames once the thing's hot enough, either. But, speaking as a furloughed CRJ pilot and a current mechanic at a regional, nobody (at my company) seems to willingly violate ADs and inspections. The system is so complex and there are so many hands involved, that it becomes almost inevitable that something slips through the cracks. An inspection gets performed but not properly entered in the computer and voila.. it never happened on paper. Or, if the computer never tells us to perform an inspection... then... it ain't gonna get done, period.

As a mechanic, it seems that there are a lot more ways for the Feds to get their pound of flesh from me than there was when I was flying the line.

I'm sure the true cause with this won't see the light of day, but my guess is that some hiccup in your carrier's maintenance scheduling software missed certain parameters to to trigger the inspection.

It's because of time CHQ skipped it (Or pencil whipped it). But these kind of inspection has QC involvement. And QC don't go under the Director of MX

Way off!
 

From the article:

Numbers like this do not support your theory of a "hiccup" in the system. Furthermore, what you're saying is that because the system is so complex that it's ok if things "fall through the cracks"...hey, it's only people right? Your statement is exactly how management would want to sweep this under the rug.

So, how is it that many other CRJ and ERJ operators subject to the same inspections and AD's can adhere to regulatory compliance and CHQ can't? Or better yet, how much money did Bedford save by looking the other way in relation to the FAA fines?

You get the picture, I give you an A for effort, but no one is buying it.

I don't think he was trying to say it was OK or that it was excusable, I just think he was trying to say it was not intentional. There are some pilots who want to believe that maintenance and management is all a giant global conspiracy to screw with them.

I think he was just trying to say that it is a complex system, that it is simple to miss things, and that often it is a simple paperwork problem rather than someone trying to save money by not turning a wrench.

I do agree with most of your statement when it pertains to something missing here or there as there is not a single tracking system that is perfect. However, if you look at the numbers, this isn't a random event or series of events. These are big numbers, this is a company not complying with AD's and required inspections on multiple aircraft, there's simply no excuse for that. Management is responsible for regulatory compliance, and in this case the better question is how much did Bedford save by looking the other way?

You guys can try paint this anyway you want, but at the end of the day, when you go years on multiple frames without complying with basic functions of safety such as inspections, then that says that this company is putting MONEY way ahead of safety, and make no mistake about it, management knew about this. You're welcome to provide evidence proving otherwise, however, I don't think the administrator sees it the way you do.

As a member of the traveling public (when I deadhead or travel for leisure) who's sat in the back of those airplanes I'm angry, because RAH management decided to gamble with my life to save a few bucks. If I was a CHQ pilot, I would be enraged about this as the risk is greater flying these things in and out all day long.

I think Babbit wants to be perceived as personally leading the assault on regional airlines...congressional brownie points.

Kinda reminds me of good old TSA (airline).

I want to know who decides the amount of the fine. Eagle was recently fined $2.9 million for flying 1100 flights with improperly repaired gear doors while Chautauqua was fined 348,000 for flying 27,700 flights with various inspections missing.

In other words Eagle was fined $2,636 per flight and Chautauqua was fined $12.56 per flight.

Spot on. When you are flying and you miss a crossing restriction, think of it as scoring a demerit. When you mess up interpreting how to schedule, perform or document a repetitive maintenance task, the demerits keep racking up until someone fixes your foul up.

For example, when ASA missed some engine borescope inspections on 90-something CRJs at C-check last year, I was riding the crew bus with a flock of hens, I mean flight attendants, and roosters, I mean pilots, who were clucking and crowing about the situation. They wanted our new Maintenance management team to get the ax.. immediately. It turns out, for whatever reason, our computer software didn't include the engine borescope inspection as part of the C-check work package, so it wasn't done... for a long time. The new guys discovered the glitch, self-disclosed it to the Feds to minimize financial impact and got on the ball fixing things.

From all appearances, Chataqua could have had an identical problem. They just didn't handle the recovery as we did.

Again, not condoning anything, just trying to lend a little bit of insight that the furlough has given me. When I was flying the line, I used to get paired up with captains who thought every segment of the company was out to get us. As a pilot, I've learned that it's just not so. Every working stiff is bent over the barrel in one way or another in this industry.

Again the numbers don't support a simple "foul up", your interpretation of the events seems to point the finger at maintenance's record keeping. Yet I ask again, how is it that other CRJ and ERJ carriers are able to comply without any "foul ups"? Is it possible that there is actual accountability at those other carriers? The problem here is that you're only addressing a symptom not the disease.

Well, apparently the administrator does not agree with your assessment. You see the corporate culture of most regional carriers now (mine included) is to save money where ever they can to maximize profits. The problem is that this has every indication of Bedford taking shortcuts to save a few bucks.

I would agree with your theory if it encompassed a year or less of mx records, but in talking to our own MX, they agree that there's no way that such mistakes can go unnoticed for as long as they did in this case and in two different types. You working in maintenance yourself should know that. The bottom line is that the administrator determined that the inspections had not been done, and someone simply looked the other way.

Folks, just remember, it could always be your family in the back of these aircraft, there is no excuse for this level of stupidity.

Was Eagle caught or did they self disclose?The FAA usually gives a discount on the fine if you submit by self discloser.

This is very disappointing. I should never have to question my own safety when it comes to these planes. I think RAH is lucky this is the only setback(financial) they will suffer. The worst case scenario would be truly tragic.

I agree with you 100%, I would feel the same way if something like that would happen here.

Is the union doing anything about it for you guys?

No offical word from the union yet. Would I be suprised if they said nothing? No. I hope that is not the case.

Public memory is short. It was only last year the FAA was being slapped upside the head for being too cozy with the airlines. Babbitt, as a former airline pilot, can't be seen as ignoring those allegations.

How many here are comfortable with airlines being allowed to do maintenance inspections only when they feel like it?

Think about this:

$348,000 for 27,700 flights with unairworthy aircraft

OR

$1,350,000 for ONE 50 pax flight that took over three hours to get airborne.

Just shows safety takes second to convenience.

I know a lot of you want to blame this on Bedford and his style of business, but look at the facts a little more thoughtfully. CHQ has not had a history of missed Mx inspections on any of the Embraers. RAH in general has received MX oversight and support from Embraer for years, and have not had any major issues like we see here with the CRJ. Now consider that the CRJ was a brand new fleet type to RAH, with a 2 year lifespan on property, and that the planes used were very old hulls out of storage. If you read the article closely, you will see that the violation period refers to 2007, the year the CRJ's were first added to the RAH fleet. I will be the first to call shennanigans on BB when he deserves it, but this really appears to be a case of CHQ just not getting a proper Mx control program in place from Day One on the CRJ type. Perhaps a real low cost vendor was chosen, or perhaps they chose the wrong person in-house to verify what AD's these particular CRJ's were subject to, or perhaps someone chose the incorrect start point for calculating the start of the AD compliance cycle, but I am quite certain that this was a simple oversight. New fleet to the company, new fleet to the mechanics, new maintenance software, and a tracking error in the first year of operations...sounds more like an honest mistake to me. The system worked, the oversight was caught, and discipline was taken. Move on.

And it all happened because BB came in counting on the ERJs from XE. I don't know if CAL mislead him, or he just didn't care. Either way, once they (CAL and BB) found out XE was keeping the ERJs BB went out and brought these POS sand filled CRJs from the desert.

Seems it was avoidable.

Finally somebody gets the picture (or part of it). You talk about a competitive edge, I'm sure the conversation went something like this: "Well XJT is not putting out, let's pull the cheapest, oldest aircraft we can find. Oh, and don't worry about the maintenance too much, we'll be flying 70 seats for CAL in no time!". What surprises me is the fact that it was also the ERJ's. What kind of circus are those guys running?

It's naive at best to think that every penny is not accounted for at any regional, RAH is no exception. If you read the FAA report, there's no way this was a clerical error, too many coincidences, management knew about this.

Seems like you might be wrong. How does your conspiracy theory explain that Southwest is at the top of this list of Maintenance fines, and Republic and Mesa, for example, are at the bottom?

Airline/ Total fines/ Fines/Warnings2

Southwest /$7,500,000 /1/ 91
American /$5,864,0003 /12/ 214
US Airways/ $5,653,5004/ 3/ 52
United /$3,906,7505 /7 /36
American Eagle /$2,002,000/ 23/ 80
Alaska/$1,117,000 /36/ 98
Northwest /$690,550/ 6/ 161
Frontier /$369,500 /14 /18
Atlantic Southeast /$250,000/ 1/ 6
Delta /$145,500/ 3/ 28
JetBlue /$126,000 /4/ 9
ExpressJet/ $98,600/ 10/ 47
Mesaba /$78,250/ 6/ 47
PSA /$73,000/ 2/ 6
Hawaiian/ $72,000/ 2/ 26
Horizon Air/ $52,500/ 2/ 20
Continental /$49,000/ 2/ 91
Chautauqua /$40,500/ 2/ 8
Air Wisconsin /$27,000 /3 /11
Pinnacle /$19,800 /1 /26
SkyWest /$14,500 /2 /26
Mesa /$6,500 /2 /32
AirTran/$4,000/ 1/ 12
Comair /$0/ 0/ 3
Republic /$0 /0 /7

FAA fines show extent of airline problems - USATODAY.com

That's a really weak argument Mr. Skywatch.

First you're equating a dollar amount to the severity of the violation, which as already proven, is a number picked by the administrator using a formula which neither you or I are privy to. The dollar amount clearly does not equate the risk.

You're using the typical management argument of look our fines are "in line with the rest of the industry", just like our pay.

Now let's look at the numbers that do matter:

8 CRJ's - Conducted more than 9,900 flights without the mandatory lower wing inspections.

2 CRJ's - Flown 231 flights and 61 hours without structural and electrical mandatory inspections.

1 CRJ - Flew more than 17,600 flights without it's mandatory engine inspections.

1 ERJ - Flew 43 days past the replacement date for it's inertial navigational unit.

Here's what you failed to mention in your previous post, when Eagle, SWA, AA were fined it was all for the same non-compliance item in each case. If you noticed the list above which came directly from the FAA you got 5 different inspections that were not complied with over the course of two years. What does that tell you about the management that does not hold it's maintenance department accountable?

Do you really feel comfortable knowing that you or your family could have been ridding in the back of one of these aircraft?

First off, lets drop the MR. After all, we are all friends here - you can just call me Skywatch.

Second, I was addressing your question - "Yet I ask again, how is it that other CRJ and ERJ carriers are able to comply without any "foul ups"?"

I am just pointing out that it seems like the FAA has fined a LOT of other CRJ and ERJ carriers for maintenance foul ups.

Am I saying it is OK? Nope. Am I saying I like it? Nope. I am merely pointing out that it does not seem that Chautauqua is the only carrier that has made mistakes in the past. It also does not seem to have anything to do with penny pinching management, as Mesa is at the bottom of the list. it also seems it does not have anything to do with BB, because his carrier is at the bottom of the list.

But, I get it, that kind of ruins the conspiracy theory and that spoils the funny. Sorry about that. In the future I will try to limit the amount of truth I inject into the conversation and try to focus more on emotional rants.

Speaking of emotional replies, you didn't address any of the points in the post. Kinda takes the air out of your perspective doesn't it?

The point is not who is right, but rather the fact that 5 different inspections were missed at CHQ over the course of 2 years, and collectively over 27000 flights were operated without the basic safety protections provided by such inspections. Where you and I will have to agree to disagree is whether management knew or not. I say the FAA answer that question though:

Well first all you homers need to look at the numbers... NO way that over a 15 month period ONE CRJ flew 17,600 segments.... thats like 39 flights a day... so FIRST somewhere the numbers are wrong.

now that said.. FINE the SOB's if they are not in compliance. Hell every airline out there has aircraft flying that have something amiss, either intentional or unintentional.

Just look at the number of fines and warnings, disregard the fine amounts.

Looks like the regionals are safer to fly on yet again.

If you thought I was emotional, I apologize. Internet debates rarely move my blood pressure. As far as addressing your points in your post, I have to admit I did not understand what your point was.

Personally, I thought my post addressed your argument fairly effectively, but maybe I misunderstood your point.

I thought you implied that CHQ management was evil because they purposely neglected required maintenance and then got caught. I thought that you reasoned this must be so because no one else gets caught. I pointed out that lots and lots and lots of other airlines got caught. I would have thought that would have slowed you down a little, but I was wrong. So I must have misunderstood what you were saying, because you are still arguing despite the fact that there are lots and lots of airlines out there that get fined by the FAA all the time. Pilots don't purposely bust altitudes, and I don't think mx purposely blows off maintenance. I believe at the end of the day, no airline is really that evil.

But I also believe that we really went to the moon, and I don't believe that DIA is the home of the new world order, so what do I know?

So the recurrent theme with your posts seems to be:

- Not addressing anyone's points that weakens your own point view.

- Other carriers are subject to equal or greater fines, thus making it an automatic paperwork snafu which management did not have anything to do with, even though such clerical errors extended through a period of two years, two types, and five different inspections (sure a thing pal).

- You refuse to engaged in the debate so you resort to calling me a conspiracy theorist.

- You're a big fan of management and Tim Martin (this last one is more of a joke based on your avatar, assuming you actually know what a sense of humor is).

Let me know when you're ready to address the points you failed to address in your last two post, and we'll continue the debate.

As I said earlier you and I will have to agree to disagree as to whether management knew about this or not, but as I posted 3 times already, the administrator seems to think they did, and they didn't manage their maintenance program.

goaround

Have to be honest after reading the back-and-forth between you two; his rebuttals appear to be fine but falling on your deaf ear.

It would appear that he took one of my comments out of context. I asked why other CRJ/ERJ did not a problem complying with AD's and inspections? He came back with a list of fines, that neither detail the reason, or the severity of the violations.

A. I never claimed that CHQ was the only one having problems, nor that other carriers didn't have problems. However, the problems at CHQ seem to be amplified by the length of time, the number of inspections missed, and the fact that we're talking about two different aircraft types.

B. The second part of his argument is that management did not know and that this is nothing more than a clerical error. The FAA disagrees and so do I.

Apparently he refuses to either address the points made after his post, and/or agree to disagree. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me much, but it is a bit alarming that there are pilots out there that would go to bat for Bedford even while his bending them over the table.

goaround

and still nobody engages the fact that NO WAY did that ONE CRJ fly 17,600 segments in 15 months!!!

I do not hold RAH management in high regard but I don't believe they would purposely neglect required AD's in order to pinch pennies. Conspirecy theories are fun but seriously.........

Maybe because when gear doors fail, there are lots of news helicopters waiting to film the results. Bad press for the whole airline and attaboys for "the pilot" that manages to set her down without balling it up.

When a wing spar fails there is usually nobody there to film the final moments. Chalk it up to low-time regional pilots and move on.


The skeptic in me would like to point out that if BB gambled with skipping inspections to save money, and his ultimate fine is $13 per skipped inspection, then his gamble paid off handsomely. There's no way a spar or engine inspection would have been cheaper than the $13 dollars to NOT do it.

I wonder if this pittance of a fine will get the attention it deserves?

The FAA just sent out a new AD on "wide spread fatigue" ( aging aircraft) , or maybe not too new but currently now getting enforced. It's to be complied with and in the works by Dec of this year. More record keeping and compliance on the carriers part and more inpections and paper work on the FAA's part. I beleive its to help ensure things like this dont happen. You cant always know or even see in alot of places on a plane where aging can realy cause havoc.

Not defending them but you'll find that RAH self disclosed, great work by the FEDS? Come on!

This will just be another RAH bashing thread but where do you stand with American and Southwest doing the same thing?

That's kinda my take on it, too.

Debate is great, but kind of a waste of time when both parties already have their minds made up...

See my comments embedded in the post.