FAA Proposes Civil Penalties Against Eight Companies


  Bookmark and Share

FAA Proposes Civil Penalties Against Eight Companies

By Mike Mitchell

July 18, 2011 - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing civil penalties ranging from $66,000 to $133,950 against eight companies for alleged violations of FAA regulations. They include the following: 

Apollo Aviation of Fruitland Park, Fla.:  $77,300 for allegedly operating a Cessna 172 on nine flights between July 21 and 24, 2010, when it was not in compliance with FAA regulations. The aircraft crashed near Waynesboro, Va., on July 24. The pilot was not injured.  

The FAA alleges Apollo failed to accomplish the required tests and inspections of the altimeter, static system and transponder in the aircraft within the 24 months leading up to the accident.

JetSmart, Inc., of Rochester, N.Y.:  $133,950 for allegedly operating a Hawker Beechcraft 125-800 business jet aircraft on 63 flights between Oct. 3, 2009 and Dec. 15, 2009, when it was not in compliance with FAA regulations.  

The FAA alleges JetSmart failed to inspect handheld fire extinguishers every 30 days, as required under the company?s approved inspection program. The aircraft also made two additional flights on Dec. 10 and Dec. 15, 2009, when the passenger public address system was inoperative, but the company failed to post the required placard in the airplane confirming that fact. 

26 North Aviation, Inc. of Allentown, Pa.:  $81,000 for allegedly failing to inspect overwing emergency exits after opening them as part of crew evacuation training on several of its aircraft. The company?s FAA-approved general maintenance manual mandates the inspections that must be completed and documented before the aircraft can be returned to service. The alleged violations occurred at multiple points beginning on June 2, 2009 and continued through Feb. 17, 2010.    

Aviation Specialties Unlimited, Inc., of Boise, Idaho: $77,000 for allegedly installing a night vision system on a helicopter used for emergency medical services when it was not authorized to perform that modification.  The FAA further alleges that Aviation Specialties failed to perform the modification correctly and used unacceptable technical data to guide the work.  The alleged violation occurred Nov. 24, 2009.   

Liberty Jet Management Corporation of Oyster Bay, N.Y.:  $75,000 for allegedly using a pilot who had failed his most recent checkride as second-in-command on approximately 25 charter flights.  FAA regulations require all crewmembers to have passed checkrides (or other appropriate evaluations) before they may fly as required crew. The flights operated between Aug. 4 and Nov. 11, 2010.


American Eagle Airlines of Fort Worth:  $77,500 for alleged violations of the company?s operations specification for its ground de-icing/anti-icing program.  The FAA alleges American Eagle?s line maintenance contractor at Richmond., Va., used uncalibrated tools to test the anti-freeze used for de-icing aircraft, and that the tools were not specified for use by the airline?s FAA-approved general maintenance manual and its ground deicing program.   

Under FAA regulations, a carrier is responsible for overseeing a contractor?s maintenance.  FAA inspectors discovered the problem and said the violations took place between Feb. 13 and March 9, 2010. 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA) of Atlanta:  $132,000 for allegedly operating a Bombardier CRJ regional jet on 22 passenger-carrying flights between May 14 and May 18, 2010, while it was not in compliance with FAA regulations.  The FAA alleges that ASA performed maintenance on the aircraft on May 13, 2010, but did not execute a maintenance release or appropriate aircraft logbook entry releasing the aircraft for service.


Jet Aircraft Maintenance of Miami: $66,000 for allegedly failing to perform tire changes properly on various United Airlines A320 airliners. The alleged violations occurred between Nov. 24 and Dec. 2, 2010 at Washington?s Reagan National Airport. Jet Aircraft Maintenance performs line maintenance for United at the airport. The FAA specifically alleges the company did not use the proper tools and specified lubricants during the tire changes. 

The companies have 30 days from the receipt of the FAA?s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

Other News Stories (For the latest news please checkout our home page)


Home Aviation News Aviation Stories Of Interest FAA Exam Upcoming Events Links To Other Sites General Aviation Helicopters Medical Factors Facing Pilots
Maintenance and Aircraft Mechanics Hot Air Balloon Aviation Training Handbooks Read Online Aviation History Legal Issues In Aviation Sea Planes Editorials
 ?AvStop Online Magazine                                                                 Contact Us                                                  Return To News                                          Bookmark and Share


AvStop Aviation News and Resource Online Magazine

Grab this Headline Animator