September 28, 2011
The Dutch Transport and Water Management Inspectorate (IVW) has suspended the AOC of operator Solid-aiR for safety reasons.
Effective September 28, 2011 the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of Solid-aiR is suspended for a period of three months. During a safety audit the Inspectorate found several shortcomings with regards to crew training and defect reporting. Also, violations were found of duty and rest schedules for pilots, incident reporting and violations in flight operations.
The Inspectorate states that these findings were serious and of a structural nature, leading to the suspension. The suspension will be lifted when the company successfully demonstrates its ability to conduct safe operations.
According to the Dutch civil aircraft register, the airline operates one Bombardier Challenger 850, one Cessna 525 CitationJet, two Cessna 550 Citation Bravo’s, one Cessna 560 Citation V, fourCessna 650 Citation VI’s, one Dassault Falcon 900, one Piaggio P.180 Avanti, and one Raytheon Premier 1.
September 16, 2011
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a civil penalty of $1,892,000 against Colgan Air, of Manassas, Va., a subsidiary of Pinnacle Airlines, for allegedly allowing flight attendants to work on 172 revenue passenger flights when they were not properly trained to use the planes’ cabin fire extinguisher system.
The 84 newly-hired flight attendants worked flights on the Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8-Q400 twin turbo-prop aircraft between Nov. 3 and Nov. 9, 2009 after the FAA told Colgan the flight attendants had not completed the required training.
The FAA inspected the carrier’s new-hire flight attendant training for the Q400 on Nov. 2, 2009. The FAA alleges the new Colgan flight attendants were trained with fire extinguishers used on the airline’s Saab 340s, which operate differently than those used on the Q400.
Colgan has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
September 12, 2011
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $1.1 million civil penalty against Aviation Technical Services, Inc. (ATS), of Everett, Wash., for allegedly making improper repairs to 44 Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300s.
The FAA alleges that ATS failed to accomplish all the work required by three FAA airworthiness directives calling for five repetitive inspections and a one-time inspection to find and repair fatigue cracks in the fuselage skins of the planes. The inspections are part of Southwest’s Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program.
After the inspections, ATS allegedly failed to install fasteners in all the rivet holes within the time specified for the task. The drying time of the required sealant dictates the window available to complete installation of the fasteners.
The aircraft involved returned to service between Dec. 1, 2006 and Sept.18, 2009.
The Southwest Airlines B-737-300 that suffered a fuselage crown failure in April 2011 is not one of the aircraft listed in the proposed civil penalty. ATS did not perform inspection and repair work on that aircraft prior to the April fuselage failure.
Aviation Technical Services has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
September 11, 2011
Russian aviation regulator Rostransnadzor has suspended the operations of several Yakovlev 42 aircraft following the fatal accident involving such an aircraft on September 7 near Yaroslavl, Russia.
Rostransnadzor reported that by September 9, six Yak-42 aircraft had been checked. These checks resulted on the grounding of three planes, operated by Grozny Avia, Gazpromavia, and KrasAvia.
On September 10, inspectors grounded a Yak Service Yak-42D, RA-42412 at Izmir, Turkey because one of the engines had been in use beyond the time limits set for the engine. On the same dat an Izhavia Yak-42 was grounded at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport due to unspecified safety violations.
September 10, 2011
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $590,000 civil penalty against Alaska Airlines, Inc., of Seattle, Wash., for allegedly operating a Boeing 737-400 on 2,107 flights when it was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
On Jan. 18, 2010, a flight deck ceiling fire occurred in a Boeing 737-400 while it was parked at the gate at Anchorage International Airport. Investigators determined the fire was caused by chafed wiring that had resulted from improper installation of a hose clamp. Alaska had most recently performed maintenance in the burned area in August 2008.
The B737-400 maintenance manual includes an explicit warning about proper installation of the hose clamp. Alaska subsequently discovered the same problem existed on nine other B737-400s in its fleet and made corrections. There were no other fires.
Alaska Airlines has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
August 29, 2011
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $269,000 civil penalty against The Parachute Center, of Acampo, Calif., for allegedly operating a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter on 41 flights when it was not in compliance with federal aviation regulations.
The FAA alleges that The Parachute Center failed to comply with a 2009 Airworthiness Directive requiring repetitive inspections of the left and right front spar adapter assemblies to identify cracks that might threaten the structural integrity of the airplane. According to the FAA, the company operated the aircraft between November 2 and November 15, 2009, when it was out of compliance with the airworthiness directive.
The Parachute Center has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the Agency.
The operator had also been involved in a proposed fine of $664,000 in October 2010.
August 29, 2011
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $298,500 civil penalty against Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. (CCIA) of Orlando, Fla., for allegedly operating eight Boeing 727 aircraft when the aircraft were not in compliance with federal aviation regulations.
Specifically, the FAA alleges that CCIA permitted an unqualified mechanic to perform certain aircraft inspections and to sign airworthiness releases on the company’s aircraft. The FAA said the certificated mechanic in question had not completed a required general familiarization course for the B-727 and did not have prior training or experience equivalent to that course. The FAA also said the mechanic had not taken the required examination and the company had not evaluated his prior experience and training to perform required inspections on the B-727. As a result, he was not qualified to work on the B-727.
As a consequence, CCIA operated the aircraft on 46 flights in 2008 and 2009 while they were not in compliance with federal aviation regulations.
The FAA also alleges that the same mechanic performed required inspections on one B-727 on March 13, 17 and 19, 2009, when he was not qualified to do so. As a result, the company operated that aircraft on 463 revenue flights when it was not in compliance.
CCIA has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the Agency.