goaround2000

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.

bigfatdaddy

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

Dougdrvr

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

goaround2000

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.

Bug Smasher

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.

CrippleHawk

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

goaround2000

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.

skywatch

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.

goaround2000

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.

rickair7777

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