Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA waving the big stick again

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA waving the big stick again

Old 14th Aug 2008, 22:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FAA waving the big stick again

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US airline 'broke safety rules'

Seems that American Airlines were knowingly flying some MD83s in a defective state and the FAA have stuck them with a big fine.
llondel is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2008, 22:33
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This was the press release from the FAA:

For Immediate Release
August 14, 2008
Contact: Les Dorr, Jr.
Phone: (202) 267-3883

FAA Seeks Penalties Against American Airlines for Deferred Maintenance, Other Violations

WASHINGTON, D.C. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced actions totaling $7.1 million in civil penalties against American Airlines for improperly deferring maintenance on safety-related equipment and deficiencies with its drug and alcohol testing programs and exit lighting inspections.

The FAA asserts that in December 2007, American used the wrong provisions of its Minimum Equipment List (MEL) to return two MD-83 aircraft to service after pilots had reported problems, and flew the planes 58 times in violation of FAA regulations. The MEL contains components and systems without which the aircraft may operate safely under specific limitations, as proven by the operator or manufacturer.

On December 11 and 12, American operated the first MD-83 on eight flights in airspace it should have been restricted from after maintenance on part of the autopilot system was improperly deferred. An FAA inspector discovered the improper deferral and informed the airline, however American flew the plane on 10 more revenue flights until the problem was fixed on December 17.

In another incident, the autopilot disconnected during a landing by the same aircraft on December 21. American technicians did not check for the actual problem, and instead deferred maintenance using an inappropriate MEL item. The plane flew another 36 passenger-carrying flights during December 21-31. Airline maintenance later discovered the fault was in a radio altimeter not the autopilot.

For the violations involving this MD-83, the FAA is proposing a $4.1 million civil penalty.

A different MD-83 experienced an autopilot disconnect on December 27. Although American mechanics correctly diagnosed the problem, they again deferred maintenance under the wrong item of the MEL. As a result, the aircraft operated on four revenue flights without a fully functioning autopilot. The FAA is proposing a $325,000 civil penalty in this instance.

The FAA believes the large total amount of the fine for these violations is appropriate because American Airlines was aware that appropriate repairs were needed, and instead deferred maintenance. In intentionally continuing to fly the aircraft, the carrier did not follow important safety regulations intended to protect passengers and crew.

Also, in May of this year the FAA proposed civil penalties in the amount of $2.7 million in civil penalties against American for alleged past deficiencies in its drug and alcohol testing programs and for allegedly operating aircraft in past years without timely inspections of emergency escape path lighting systems. The amount included $1.7 million civil penalty for the testing program violations and $1 million for the lighting inspection violations.

American Airlines will have the opportunity to respond to the proposed civil penalties.

CD is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 00:10
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really more of an example of inflamatory media articles, and overzealous inspectors.

What they're describing are very minor things that got flown for a few days on a technicality; someone cited the wrong MEL item in what would have nearly certainly been deferrable under a different line item...a technicality. Doesn't sound like safety was compromised in the least. Someone's principle maintenance inspector is trying to make a name for himself.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 00:28
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Problem is,those seemingly innocuous paperwork errors could turn into a real disaster. Flying an airplane with a bogus deferral of a nav light on the right vs. left wing isn't a big deal, but deferring the wrong fuel pump, valve or electrical generator can turn into a real nightmare scenario should other failures occur.

The sanction isn't about how benign the mistake was, it's about the occurence in the first place.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 02:36
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First Wave of "Gimme Money" FAA Philosophy

To All...

The way our current curiously inventive, budget-blowing, rights-killing administration has seeded various offices with "their own" is starting to show.

I've never seen such impressive fines combined with such an impressive lack of constructive criticism.

Combine that with the attitude this current crop of joes have - they're trying to convince us they're earning their paychecks by FINING a company for gross breachs nearly a year after they happen!

And they're picking the perfect time to do it, if they want to cause layoffs among their own. Keep pasting airlines with high fines, they'll inch closer to the "deep red" than they are...

rottenray is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 05:21
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I would disagree that an inop nav light is a minor issue for you guys Stateside. There's a lot of GA in and around commercial airports west of the pond with lots of those pilots using see and avoid, and not all of them being transponder equipped. Couple that with an overstretched ATC, I think I would want the GA jock to know which way I was going.

As for the issue of these fines, they do indeed seem to be a bit draconian. I moonlight for an NAA and in my neck of the woods the probability of fines like this (or proportionally similar) would almost certainly be out of the question. NAAs have other tools at their disposal, not only fines!
Romeo India Xray is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 13:33
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not sure I understand...was it illegal to fly without an autopilot, or was the wrong MEL number used to allow a flight without the autopilot.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 15:49
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Romeo India Xray:

You completely missed the point I was attempting to make. Completely and Utterly.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2008, 16:33
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,484
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The key to understanding these fines is the notion of the "normalization of deviance" under a regulatory system moving towards SMS.

Comments such as FIRESYSOK's and others are spot on. This is about process, not individual acts of MEL issues etc.

The default view of "this is about politics and money" may be demonstrable (always is), but that isn't news nor is saying it helpful in fully comprehending what's going on.

What is news, is, the FAA is taking back some ground lost to an SMS "(relatively) non-involved, self-monitoring" safety system. For reasons we may only guess, the record shows that US carriers were getting sloppy. Frankly, I think the same circumstances exist in Australia and Canada. Not sure about EASA yet but the record is not as spotty as in the former two.

In my considered opinion, Transport Canada is in the same position but I don't think they know it yet. The approach to SMS is hiding a lot of ills...
PJ2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.