Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Fines Horizon Air – Safety Violations  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25794 posts, RR: 50
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7343 times:

Hmm.. another maintenance related fine against Horizon.. 3rd one in about half a year…


The FAA proposes a civil penalty of $1,005,000 against Horizon Air for operating aircraft in non compliance with FARs.

FAA alleges that Horizon Air operated 22 Bombardier Dash-8 aircraft for a period of 3.5 years between 2007 and 2011 with flight deck door installation utilizing incorrect rivets.

FAA discovered the violation when an incorrectly modified aircraft experienced and inflight incident caused by damaged wiring result of the rivets.

The FAA also alleges the airline even after being told of the non compliance, Horizon operated aircraft in revenue flights before correcting the safety defects promptly.


Press release:
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13815

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7087 times:

Wow... a fine in excess of a million dollars over incorrect rivet use?
If the modification was done IAW anything, that document was most likely FAA approved.....
So were the wrong rivets SPECIFIED, or were they selected by mistake?
Seems a bit excessive... as thought the FAA feels like carriers (QX and AA this week) enjoy making maintenance mistakes, and the only way to make it painful is HUGE fines.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21701 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7057 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
Seems a bit excessive... as thought the FAA feels like carriers (QX and AA this week) enjoy making maintenance mistakes, and the only way to make it painful is HUGE fines.

If QX really did allow aircraft to operate after they had been informed of the problem, that's not a mistake.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5620 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7008 times:

Makes sense to me...

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
FAA alleges that Horizon Air operated 22 Bombardier Dash-8 aircraft for a period of 3.5 years between 2007 and 2011 with flight deck door installation utilizing incorrect rivets.

Oops. Fix it.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
FAA discovered the violation when an incorrectly modified aircraft experienced and inflight incident caused by damaged wiring result of the rivets.

Oops. Fix it quickly.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The FAA also alleges the airline even after being told of the non compliance, Horizon operated aircraft in revenue flights before correcting the safety defects promptly.

This is beyond "oops, fix it." This warrants the fine.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6935 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
f QX really did allow aircraft to operate after they had been informed of the problem, that's not a mistake.

Exactly......the Airline was aware....Thats the problem.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25794 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6808 times:

Kinda wonder if Horizon has a systematic or internal cultural issue with maintenance practices and quality control.

As I stated this is their 3 large formal fine from the FAA in 6-months.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 412 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6679 times:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't QX owned and operated by AS? If so, AS has an excellent MX history, why would they sit back and allow QX to get away with shoddy MX?


Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6611 times:

Quoting United727 (Reply 6):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't QX owned and operated by AS? If so, AS has an excellent MX history, why would they sit back and allow QX to get away with shoddy MX?

AS MX has been held in question before, and IIRC, they have been levied fines by the FAA for MX issues. I want to say it was something to do with the M80 they lost in the Pacific operating from SJD to SFO or something like that, I forget the flight number, I'm sure someone here can correct me.



AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6515 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 7):

AS MX has been held in question before, and IIRC, they have been levied fines by the FAA for MX issues. I want to say it was something to do with the M80 they lost in the Pacific operating from SJD to SFO or something like that, I forget the flight number, I'm sure someone here can correct me.

You are thinking of AS 261, which crashed in January 2000 off the coast of California while operating PVR-SFO. And indeed, poor maintenance on AS's part and poor oversight on the FAA's part were factors in the crash.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 8):

You are thinking of AS 261, which crashed in January 2000 off the coast of California while operating PVR-SFO. And indeed, poor maintenance on AS's part and poor oversight on the FAA's part were factors in the crash

Thanks for inserting the details properly, yes this was the crash I was referring to, a very sad day indeed. RIP 261



AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6353 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
Wow... a fine in excess of a million dollars over incorrect rivet use?

Does seem a little expensive....maybe these fines is how we're going to lower our national debt   

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
Oops. Fix it quickly.

Were they assessed a warning first?



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 412 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6304 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 7):
AS MX has been held in question before, and IIRC, they have been levied fines by the FAA for MX issues.

I was well aware of 261, but that was 12 years ago, and I haven't heard anything derogatory about their maintenance as of late.



Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6215 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 10):
Does seem a little expensive

As it should be. It's been proven time and time again that until the penalties exceed the cost savings of cutting corners, the corners will be cut.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17081 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The FAA also alleges the airline even after being told of the non compliance, Horizon operated aircraft in revenue flights before correcting the safety defects promptly.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
Seems a bit excessive... as thought the FAA feels like carriers (QX and AA this week) enjoy making maintenance mistakes, and the only way to make it painful is HUGE fines.

Even after being told about the incorrect rivets, QX continued to operate the aircraft.

It seems as though they enjoy to make these mistakes, otherwise they would have been corrected immediately.


I don't get why some members here complain about the FAA every time they fine an airline. If airlines performed proper maintenance there would never be any fines, and in reality there shouldn't be any need for fines. I for one am happy that at least the FAA does their part of the job. After all, the FAA exists for our safety.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13650 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United727 (Reply 11):

I was well aware of 261, but that was 12 years ago, and I haven't heard anything derogatory about their maintenance as of late.

AS has received the FAA's Diamond Award for maintenance training excellence for 10 consecutive years.

In regard to the QX incident mentioned here, the FAA claims that QX improperly used an alternate rivet while installing fortified flight deck doors on 22 of the Q400s in the fleet. They have proposed this $1,005,000 fine as a result.

QX believed at the time that this alternate rivet - a stronger one, mind you - was a proper substitute, and that procedures were being followed in choosing to make the substitution. QX opted to use the alternate rivet and believed it was within its authority to make the change.

QX took immediate action when the FAA expressed concern, inspected its entire fleet and replaced the alternate rivet with the specified rivet on all of the affected aircraft. This was completed in June, and the specified rivets are now in the maintenance procedures.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5756 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 14):
QX took immediate action when the FAA expressed concern, inspected its entire fleet and replaced the alternate rivet with the specified rivet on all of the affected aircraft. This was completed in June, and the specified rivets are now in the maintenance procedures.

Then why the fine......



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 14):
AS has received the FAA's Diamond Award for maintenance training excellence for 10 consecutive years.

In regard to the QX incident mentioned here, the FAA claims that QX improperly used an alternate rivet while installing fortified flight deck doors on 22 of the Q400s in the fleet. They have proposed this $1,005,000 fine as a result.

QX believed at the time that this alternate rivet - a stronger one, mind you - was a proper substitute, and that procedures were being followed in choosing to make the substitution. QX opted to use the alternate rivet and believed it was within its authority to make the change.

QX took immediate action when the FAA expressed concern, inspected its entire fleet and replaced the alternate rivet with the specified rivet on all of the affected aircraft. This was completed in June, and the specified rivets are now in the maintenance procedures.

I am hoping AS appeals this ruling and they re-look at this fine, on the surface seems like an unintentional interpretation of the rules set by the FAA? What would this type of repair cost QX per aircraft? Then x it by 22.

You'll most likely find the fine far exceeds the original cost of doing this repair to each plane that needed the refit to begin with. I don't think QX would have intentionally left this issue go uncorrected unless they did honestly believe the problem was resolved with the stronger rivet. No way QX would have risked a fine like this just to avoid replacing a few rivets during routine MX. Especially after 10 years of excellence awards for great MX.



AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25794 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4787 times:

Quoting United727 (Reply 11):
I haven't heard anything derogatory about their maintenance as of late.

Well AS got a fine themselves recently ---

FAA Fines Alaska & Horizon Air – Safety Violations (by LAXintl May 4 2012 in Civil Aviation)

and then last fall also -
FAA Fines Alaska Air Over Maintenance Violations (by LAXintl Sep 9 2011 in Civil Aviation)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4556 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 15):
Then why the fine......

Because at the end of the day flights were actually operated with the alternate rivets. QX thought they were acceptable alternate parts. The FAA said they weren't. QX gets fined for the flights that operated with them and they worked on replacing the rivets immediately upon hearing from the FAA that they were in the wrong.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4187 times:

Before getting too critical on Horizon, the FAA basically fines every airline every year for various compliance items. The requirements are so complicated and convoluted, that mistakes happen. In this case since it happened on 22 airplanes, I would expect that there was a problem with the task card to accomplish the procedure. It easily could have been that the procedure called out square rivets, but blind rivets were easier to install and someone allowed it to happen without realizing the consequences. From an engineer’s perspective, that is an easy mistake to make since it is a judgment call as to whether the Service Bulletin author chose square rivets because he felt like it or because there was an actual reason.

Between Service Bulletins, Component Maintenance Manual, Airplane Maintenance Manual, Task Cards, Work Instructions, etc mistakes can get made. Quality control should prevent this, and the FAA is quick with issuing fines for non-compliance in order to drive airlines to enforce strict quality controls, but mistakes happen. Having one airplane not get the repair sounds like another mistake with the configuration control.

I don’t completely excuse QX engineering & maintenance because they legitimately did not comply with a Service Bulletin procedure, but I certainly understand mistakes happening. Every airline at the world has mistakes like this happen. Even airlines with some of the most robust engineering and maintenance capabilities and hundreds of engineers like United, American, Delta and Southwest have things like this happen on a frequent basis.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUA2162 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4124 times:

Perhaps if they wrote a simple message on the door such as, "We know about this..." things would be different.

User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
Well AS got a fine themselves recently

Seems that most any airline that doesn't have an entirely new fleet could be described the same way. Here are just a few examples from Google:

FAA seeks $1M fine for Horizon Air over door rivets (8/8/2012)
American Airlines faces record FAA fines, court filings say (8/7/2012)
Delta faces stiff fines over alleged delayed repairs (7/11/2012)
FAA proposes $1.1 million fine for Southwest maintenance ... (9/13/2011)
FAA proposes $350000 fine against Lynx Aviation | ATWOnline (4/11/2011)
US Airways, United face FAA fines for safety violations - CNN (10/14/2009)


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3630 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 10):
Were they assessed a warning first?

Does the following (taken from the OP) answer your question?

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The FAA also alleges the airline even after being told of the non compliance, Horizon operated aircraft in revenue flights before correcting the safety defects promptly.

A hefty fine is warranted. This would be like a cop pulling you over for speeding, giving you a warning and telling you not to speed anymore, then you peel out right in front of him, blowing dust in his face, and take off at 100mph down the highway.

No sympathy for Horizon on this. No sympathy for *any* airline that gets fined for safety violations, especially when they do it knowingly.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5620 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 19):
Having one airplane not get the repair sounds like another mistake with the configuration control.

This is the "mistake" that prompted the fine, and it should have. Once the airline had notice that the rivets were incorrect (and had caused an incident!), it was inexcusable sloppiness not to make sure no Q400 was cleared to fly before it received the repairs. The earlier mistake (whether it came from an incorrect procedure or incorrect execution of a correct procecure) is much easier to understand and forgive.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 18):
Because at the end of the day flights were actually operated with the alternate rivets. QX thought they were acceptable alternate parts. The FAA said they weren't. QX gets fined for the flights that operated with them and they worked on replacing the rivets immediately upon hearing from the FAA that they were in the wrong.

So shouldn't the Airline have cleared with Regulatory before deciding on the Alternative rivets.



Think of the brighter side!
25 hatbutton : If I'm not mistaken, there are sometimes acceptable interchangeable parts (like rivets) on aircraft for different areas of the plane that an airline
26 HAWK21M : So in other words they goofed up in presuming......
27 RWA380 : This is the direction that the truth lies for sure, there is too much money to be fined for what would have been a much less costly repair for just 2
28 Post contains links hatbutton : The size of the fine is typically in direct correlation with the number of flights operated with the incorrect maintenance. The FAA didn't decide to
29 toobz : lol yeah because the FAA started watching them like a hawk after 261. AS (and I can say this cuz I used to work for them and saw first hand the condi
30 yeelep : No, both AS and QX are owned by AAG (Alaska Air Group). What US airline hasn't?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAA Fines Alaska & Horizon Air – Safety Violations posted Fri May 4 2012 08:55:47 by LAXintl
FAA Fines Delta $1mil – Safety Violations posted Wed Jul 11 2012 14:03:33 by LAXintl
FAA Fines Skywest Over Safety Violations posted Wed Oct 19 2011 17:25:22 by LAXintl
FAA Fines Colgan Air $1.9Mil For Safety Violations posted Thu Sep 15 2011 14:34:19 by LAXintl
FAA Fines Alaska Air Over Maintenance Violations posted Fri Sep 9 2011 10:37:12 by LAXintl
FAA Fines US Airways - Hazmat Violations posted Thu May 17 2012 09:25:46 by LAXintl
FAA Fines US & UA For Safety Violations posted Wed Oct 14 2009 21:46:45 by DTWLAX
FAA May Fine AA $162.4mil For Safety Violations posted Tue Aug 7 2012 09:45:41 by LAXintl
ORD Hit For Safety Violations In FAA Report posted Thu Sep 24 2009 09:17:21 by Csturdiv
FAA Investigating Cockpit Videos On Horizon Air posted Wed Oct 8 2008 09:41:52 by Ulfinator