AAL sued for safety violations
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAL sued for safety violations
Can't believe I beat 411A to the post with this, given his obsession, but this was in Airwise News this morning:
-------------------
September 8, 2005
American Airlines was accused of safety violations in a civil lawsuit seeking over USD$1 million in fines announced on Thursday by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn.
American denied the accusation in the lawsuit filed on September 6 saying that it had never compromised passengers' safety.
The lawsuit stems from a Federal Aviation Administration inspector's claim that he observed fuel leaking from the wing of a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft during a flight from Orlando to New York's LaGuardia Airport.
The inspector, who was on the flight in November 2003, reported that he had seen the leak and pointed it out to the flight's crew, the Brooklyn US Attorney's office said in a statement.
But the airline took no action to remedy the problem and failed to record the inspector's report in maintenance logs as required by FAA regulations, according to the complaint.
The plane went on to fly another 53 commercial flights until a regularly scheduled maintenance check, when the leak was discovered in the same location originally pinpointed by the inspector, prosecutors said.
But American disputed the complaint's version of events, saying that a qualified mechanic was dispatched to check on the wing immediately after the plane landed, and found no evidence of a leak after a thorough check.
"In accordance with our FAA approved manuals and procedures, the aircraft was subsequently dispatched," spokesman Tim Wagner said. "At no time was the safety of our passengers placed at risk."
In additional to the fines, prosecutors said in a statement said they were seeking "injunctive relief sufficient to assure that American Airlines complies with the applicable standards of safety, maintenance and record keeping."
(Reuters)
-------------------
-------------------
September 8, 2005
American Airlines was accused of safety violations in a civil lawsuit seeking over USD$1 million in fines announced on Thursday by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn.
American denied the accusation in the lawsuit filed on September 6 saying that it had never compromised passengers' safety.
The lawsuit stems from a Federal Aviation Administration inspector's claim that he observed fuel leaking from the wing of a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft during a flight from Orlando to New York's LaGuardia Airport.
The inspector, who was on the flight in November 2003, reported that he had seen the leak and pointed it out to the flight's crew, the Brooklyn US Attorney's office said in a statement.
But the airline took no action to remedy the problem and failed to record the inspector's report in maintenance logs as required by FAA regulations, according to the complaint.
The plane went on to fly another 53 commercial flights until a regularly scheduled maintenance check, when the leak was discovered in the same location originally pinpointed by the inspector, prosecutors said.
But American disputed the complaint's version of events, saying that a qualified mechanic was dispatched to check on the wing immediately after the plane landed, and found no evidence of a leak after a thorough check.
"In accordance with our FAA approved manuals and procedures, the aircraft was subsequently dispatched," spokesman Tim Wagner said. "At no time was the safety of our passengers placed at risk."
In additional to the fines, prosecutors said in a statement said they were seeking "injunctive relief sufficient to assure that American Airlines complies with the applicable standards of safety, maintenance and record keeping."
(Reuters)
-------------------
Sorry?? How does a report about a real problem in the US courts get a response waffling about wanting a similar case in the UK??
I'd be much more intrigued as to how the Inspector was able to diagnose the leak in flight, but a mechanic couldn't. Is this realistic??
I'd be much more intrigued as to how the Inspector was able to diagnose the leak in flight, but a mechanic couldn't. Is this realistic??
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN - regarding your para 2, if the 'facts' are correct, could it be that the inspector saw the IN FLIGHT LEAK from his seat and the 'mechanic' missed the IN FLIGHT LEAK on the GROUND because the tank concerned was empty?
- my italics?
I have to admit that on reading the 'case' as quoted there it looks like a 'fair cop' to me
a qualified mechanic was dispatched to check on the wing immediately after the plane landed
I have to admit that on reading the 'case' as quoted there it looks like a 'fair cop' to me
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>I'd be much more intrigued as to how the Inspector was able to diagnose the leak in flight, but a mechanic couldn't. Is this realistic??
********************************
How about airstream flowing over the suspect area drawing-out the fluid due to pressure differential, whereas at ground-level it could have been merely seepage?
Or even angle of ascent causing fluid to reach the area not reached at level stance?
********************************
How about airstream flowing over the suspect area drawing-out the fluid due to pressure differential, whereas at ground-level it could have been merely seepage?
Or even angle of ascent causing fluid to reach the area not reached at level stance?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the simple fact that when dispatched, the aircraft has much more fuel in the tanks than when it arrives.
It's been a while, but I think I recall that the inboard upper wing surface on the MD-80 series was not "exposed" to fuel until the tank had more than a certain amount of fuel in it. The "exposed area" crept outboard as the tank was filled more.
I remember something about "Ice 9" inspections after long high flights, and only the very inner upper wing surface was affected.
So if the leak was on the upper wing surface, the further outboard it was, the less likely to be seen, unless the airline was in the habit of carrying lots of fuel.
Certainly unlikely on arrival.
Of course this re-inforces a policy of not doing final preflight inspection until all fuel is on board.
It's been a while, but I think I recall that the inboard upper wing surface on the MD-80 series was not "exposed" to fuel until the tank had more than a certain amount of fuel in it. The "exposed area" crept outboard as the tank was filled more.
I remember something about "Ice 9" inspections after long high flights, and only the very inner upper wing surface was affected.
So if the leak was on the upper wing surface, the further outboard it was, the less likely to be seen, unless the airline was in the habit of carrying lots of fuel.
Certainly unlikely on arrival.
Of course this re-inforces a policy of not doing final preflight inspection until all fuel is on board.
