FAA proposes $777,000 fine against Horizon
12-09-2011, 03:44 PM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
FAA proposes $777,000 fine against Horizon
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:
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.
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.
12-09-2011, 05:40 PM
#2
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
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?
Hey, FAA, ever wonder why everybody hates you?
12-09-2011, 05:50 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 254
Originally Posted by 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?
Hey, FAA, ever wonder why everybody hates you?
No kidding, The FAA is an *********ng Joke!
12-09-2011, 06:25 PM
#4
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by 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?
Hey, FAA, ever wonder why everybody hates you?
Originally Posted by l1011
No kidding, The FAA is an *********ng Joke!
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.
12-09-2011, 06:49 PM
#5
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by 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?
Hey, FAA, ever wonder why everybody hates you?
12-13-2011, 11:55 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
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.
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.
12-14-2011, 05:40 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Skeptical
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by 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...
(a) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate that has not expired may renew that flight instructor certificate by—
(1) Passing a practical test for—
(i) One of the ratings listed on the current flight instructor certificate; or
(ii) An additional flight instructor rating; or
(2) Submitting a completed and signed application with the FAA and satisfactorily completing one of the following renewal requirements—
(i) A record of training students showing that, during the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt.
(ii) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has served as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or part 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots.
(iii) A graduation certificate showing that, within the preceding 3 calendar months, the person has successfully completed an approved flight instructor refresher course consisting of ground training or flight training, or a combination of both.
(iv) A record showing that, within the preceding 12 months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check.
(1) Passing a practical test for—
(i) One of the ratings listed on the current flight instructor certificate; or
(ii) An additional flight instructor rating; or
(2) Submitting a completed and signed application with the FAA and satisfactorily completing one of the following renewal requirements—
(i) A record of training students showing that, during the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt.
(ii) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has served as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or part 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots.
(iii) A graduation certificate showing that, within the preceding 3 calendar months, the person has successfully completed an approved flight instructor refresher course consisting of ground training or flight training, or a combination of both.
(iv) A record showing that, within the preceding 12 months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EmbraerFlyer
Regional
1
10-12-2008 02:03 PM
