FAA Proposes $359,000 fine for SkyWest
 

FAA Proposes $359,000 in Civil Penalties Against SkyWest Airlines @ AMTOnline.com Top News

FAA Proposes $359,000 in Civil Penalties Against SkyWest Airlines

FAA
SEATTLE – The FAA has proposed $359,000 in civil penalties against SkyWest Airlines, Inc., of St. George, Utah, for alleged violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.
The FAA proposed a penalty of $220,000 for alleged failure to document heavy checked bags, motorized mobility aids and a heavy shipment carried in the cargo compartment of the company’s passenger aircraft. As a result, the company operated the aircraft on five flights between April 21 and May 25, 2010 with incorrect weight and balance data. The FAA alleges the violations occurred because the carrier’s employees failed to follow required procedures for documenting cargo carried on revenue passenger flights.
The other two proposed civil penalties are for allegedly operating two Bombardier Regional Jet aircraft when they were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
In the first case, a proposed civil penalty of $70,500, the FAA alleges SkyWest employees failed to follow the company’s Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) and the Bombardier maintenance and inspection manual during five attempts by mechanics to correct an avionics system cooling problem on one aircraft. SkyWest operated the aircraft on at least five revenue passenger flights between July 15 and 21, 2009 when it was not in compliance.
In the second case, the FAA is proposing a civil penalty of $68,500, alleging SkyWest operated another Bombardier jet on eight revenue passenger flights between May 30 and June 1, 2010 when it was not in compliance with regulations. The FAA alleges SkyWest mechanics failed to follow procedures required in the airline’s CAMP when replacing the right air conditioning pack’s pressure-regulating and shutoff valve.
SkyWest has 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letters to reply to the agency.

And your point is?

Read up four lines"mechanics failed to follow procedures". As pilots we're expected to follow procedures and do so to the letter, the whole point is we pilots are trying to operate as safely and efficiently as possible, however it's not possible with maintenance deficiencies. Why was the ship with the avionics cooling fan problem released? Hence it made the press which no one
wants to see.

Why would the feds fine an airline for something such as that? Oh because there is a possibility that safety margins are affected. Instead of catching them, letting them know they made a mistake and enforcing a change in their procedures, they just fine them.

What really chapps my arse is during all of those times when we as pilots caught scheduling trying to push us outside of the FARS and nothing happens. What about when the company pushes a pilot to the limits? Doesn't that affect safety margins? Science has proven that. It doesn't make any sense how quick the FAA acts on things such as the recording of heavy checked bags but they can't get a safe crew rest schedule in place. Both cost the airline money. $400 grand is like 10 more pilots. So if they pay the fine. Then they shouldn't have any problem upping the staffing.

Sorry, just a little fed up with their (FAA) priorities, or lack there of.

Well, that's not good. I thought they were supposed to buy Mesa with that $400 grand. :D

I think if you look at WHAT they're fining them for, you'll see a common thread - it's all "security related".
-bags were not "logged" properly - security risk
-planes were operated outside the "rules" - security risk
-mechanics didn't follow procedures - security risk

The TSA is trying to take over the airline.

Ok this made zero sense.

Its so crazy it may be true!!

Every flight every day in pax 121 ops operates with incorrect weight and balance data. The FAA and the companies just don't want the bad press if we actually weighed the pax and their bags. America is full of fat people and the assumed weights are a crock.

My airline actually used to weigh the bags at a particular outstation. We had a scale like a mini truck weigh station that the bag cart would go over. We had accurate cargo weights down to the pound. After a year or so, the company realized how much revenue we lost bumping pax due to baggage weights; so they got rid of the scales.

Bent TAT probes - $20,000 fine and a security issue