| |

1.9 Million Civil Penalty Proposed against Colgan Air

Formerly Colgan Air was under fire for long-distance commuting, crew-room sleeping and other fatigue-related factors that came to light after the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. Now the Federal Aviation Administration proposed a $1,892,000 civil penalty against Colgan Air of Manassas, Va. a subsidiary of Pinnacle Airlines, for allowing flight attendants to work on 172 revenue passenger flights when they were not properly trained to use the planes’ cabin fire extinguisher system.

“FAA rules on flight crew training are designed to help ensure the safety of passengers,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We require carriers to comply with all of our safety rules, and we will not hesitate to take enforcement action when they do not.”

The 84 newly-hired flight attendants worked flights on the Bombardier 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.
“The airlines have to properly train crewmembers on the use of emergency equipment,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “The flight attendants’ primary responsibility is to know exactly how to handle emergency situations, and they can’t carry out that responsibility if they’re not properly trained.”

Colgan has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

According to Colgan, “Colgan Air was using the same type extinguisher for both the Saab 340B and Q400 training, although the Q400 extinguisher has a hose. This occurred in November 2009, and all flights during this period were completed safely and Colgan remains in compliance with these requirements today.

To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Dreamliner Battery Box Solution

    An upgrade to the battery has been reported, and Boeing is adding a fire-resistant battery box to contain the cells, and insulation around that. The box is to vent smoke outside, and will be made of titanium.

    Boeing is still planning on using lithium-ion cells instead of switching to nickel cadmium. The batteries face a series of twenty lab tests before test flights will be permitted.

    The two approved test flights include one for the new battery, and one for the new box.

    Each Dreamliner has one lithium-ion battery to power cockpit systems, and one to power on-ground functions that used to be hydraulic.

    The FAA statement is below:
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787’s return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.

    “This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”

    The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system.

    “We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign,” said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. “Today’s announcement starts a testing process which will demonstrate whether the proposed fix will work as designed.”

    The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service. The plan establishes specific pass/fail criteria, defines the parameters that should be measured, prescribes the test methodology and specifies the test setup and design. FAA engineers will be present for the testing and will be closely involved in all aspects of the process.

    The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems.

    The FAA will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements. The FAA’s January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which required operators to temporarily cease 787 operations, is still in effect, and the FAA is continuing its comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and manufacturing process.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    FAA Proposes Hazmat Civil Penalties Against 11 Companies

    WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing civil penalties ranging from $54,000 to $91,000 against 11 companies for alleged violations of Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations.

    For further information on the following cases, please contact Arlene Salac or Jim Peters at 718-553-3015.

    • $91,000 against Boston Scientific Corporation of Natick, Mass, for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing medical-grade silicone fluid, a flammable liquid, to DHL for transportation by air from Alajuela, Costa Rica, to Boston Scientific headquarters, Oct. 23, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. DHL employees at its Cincinnati sorting hub discovered the leaking package.
    • $78,000 against Westfield Coatings Corp., of Westfield, Mass., for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing paint, a flammable liquid, for transportation by air from Westfield to Hudson, N.C., August 11, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the non-hazardous material leaking from the package.
    • $54,000 against Fragrance Resources, Inc., of Clifton, N.J., for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing a flammable liquid for transportation by air from Clifton to Ft Lauderdale, Fla., Dec. 23, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the package.

    For further information on the following cases, please contact Elizabeth Cory at 847-294-7849/-7427.

    • $65,000 against Flight Options, LLC of Cleveland, for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing isopropyl alcohol, a flammable liquid, to UPS for transportation by air from Cleveland to Las Vegas, Sept. 9, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the leaking package.
    • $54,000 against the Hammelman Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing methanol, a flammable liquid, for transportation by air from Pompano Beach, Fla., to Dayton, March 23, 2010. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the leaking package.

    For further information on the following cases, please contact Kathleen Bergen at 404-305-5100.

    • $58,000 against Kemet Electronics Corporation of Simpsonville, S.C. for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing silver paint, a flammable liquid, to UPS for transportation by air from Brownsville, Texas to Simpsonville, Aug. 20, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the leaking package.
    • $56,000 against MSI Aircraft MTC SVS International, GMBH of Ruesselsheim, Germany, for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing a fuel control unit, to FedEx for transportation by air from Ruesselsheim to Miami, May 22, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. A fuel control unit containing jet fuel is considered a hazardous material. FedEx employees at Fort Lauderdale discovered the shipment was leaking.
    • $65,000 against Federal Express of Memphis, Tenn., for allegedly accepting a fiberboard box containing an unspecified toxic, corrosive liquid classified as a poison, for transportation by air from Oxford, Ala., to Chino Calif., April 1, 2010. An FAA hazardous materials special agent identified the mislabeled shipment before it could be loaded on an aircraft.
    • $54,000 against Vitacost.com of Lexington, N.C., for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing a flammable liquid and non-hazardous material for transportation by air from Lexington to Boca Raton, Fla., Jan. 29, 2010. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the leaking package.
    • $91,000 against Cardinal Health of Madison, Miss., for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing skin care products containing alcohol, a flammable liquid, to DHL for transportation by air from Madison to St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Sept. 11, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. DHL workers at the Cincinnati sorting hub discovered the leaking package.

    For information on the following case, please contact Lynn Lunsford at 817-222-4455.

    • $54,000 against PSS Medical of Lubbock, Texas for allegedly offering a fiberboard box containing ammonium nitrate, a corrosive material, to UPS for transportation by air from Lubbock to Las Cruces, N.M., Dec. 31, 2009. The shipment was undeclared. UPS workers at the Louisville sorting hub discovered the package while sorting packages for shipment and delivery.

    In all instances, the companies allegedly offered the hazardous material for transportation (or, in the case of Federal Express, accepted it) when it was not packaged, marked, classed, described, labeled or in condition for shipment as required by regulations.

    Companies have 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s notice of proposed civil penalty to respond to the agency.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    FAA Issues Directive to Prevent Windshield Fires

    July 9–The FAA is issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that requires operators of Boeing 757, 767, and 777 airplanes to either inspect or replace certain flight deck windows. The AD only affects the forward viewing windows, not the side windows.

    Operators have two options: Begin inspections within 500 flight hours and then continue at intervals that are specific for each of two window designs OR install a new, redesigned window. The inspection takes about an hour.

    The AD is aimed at preventing smoke, fire or cracking of the inner layer of the forward viewing window caused by loose electrical connections that are used to heat the window to prevent ice.

    Over the past two decades, there have been 11 reports of fire or flames on 757 (five events), 767 (three events), and 777 (three events) airplanes. Improper installation resulted in loose, improperly torqued or cross threaded screws that can contribute to overheating and arcing. The most recent incident was a May 16, 2010 emergency landing by a United 757 at Dulles International Airport.

    The FAA proposed the AD in March 2008. The agency received extensive comments and determined additional 757 service information was needed from Boeing. That in-depth review identified unique issues on the upper electrical connections on 757s which will be addressed in a separate AD so as not to hold up the fix for the lower electrical connector issue which constitutes the majority of the service problems identified to date. Although there have been no fire events on 747s, the FAA plans to propose an AD this fall since those later model airplane windows are similar.
    This AD affects 1,212 U.S. airplanes out of 2,619 worldwide. The estimated cost for the inspections is $103,020 total for U.S. operators. The window replacement is optional and would be an additional cost.

    The PDF is available here:

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    FAA and Singapore Sign Aviation Safety Agreement

    FAA and Singapore Sign Aviation Safety Agreement

    SINGAPORE—The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) signed a milestone Maintenance Agreement Guidance (MAG) yesterday with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). The agreement allows for mutual surveillance conducted on certified repair stations located abroad for each of the agreement partners.

    It provides guidance for the implementation of the previously agreed-upon. In cases where there are sufficient certificated facilities in both partner countries, MIPs may reduce the number of surveillance activities, free up inspector resources for the authorities, and reduce the regulatory burden on industry. There are 58 FAA-approved repair stations located in Singapore.

    The MAG furthers the Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) agreement signed by FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and CAAS on February 16, 2016. That agreement was the first of its kind in Asia and reduces costs by allowing the reciprocal acceptance of Singapore and the United States’ surveillance of maintenance work.

    The MIP and MAG permits reliance on each other’s surveillance systems to the greatest extent possible while maintaining safety. Agreements such as the MIP allow for greater efficiency and ultimately save valuable industry and authority resources. The FAA and the CAAS have agreed to conduct surveillance on each other’s behalf to ensure compliance with the respective regulatory requirements for maintenance and the applicable Special Conditions. Both agreements build on the 2004 U.S-Singapore Bilateral Safety Agreement (BASA) which has benefitted both countries by saving time and reducing costs in aircraft design and manufacturing.

    FAA Assistant Administrator for NextGen James Eck and Executive Director for International Affairs Carey Fagan are participating in the World Civil Aviation Chief Executives Forum this week in Singapore as part of the agency’s continued collaboration with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states.

    As part of the strong U.S.-Singapore bilateral relationship, the FAA and the CAAS also partner under Singapore’s Air Traffic Management Center of Excellence to expand understanding and build Air Traffic Management capacity in the region.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    New FAA Center of Excellence for General Aviation

    Press Release – FAA Establishes New Center of Excellence for General Aviation

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has selected a team of universities to lead a new Air Transportation Center of Excellence (COE) for general aviation. The COE will focus research and testing efforts on safety, accessibility and sustainability to enhance the future of general aviation.
    “The United States has the largest and most diverse general aviation community in the world, with more than 300,000 aircraft registered to fly through American skies,” said Secretary LaHood. “This innovative partnership with academia and industry will help us take general aviation safety to the next level.”

    The selected group is called the FAA Center of Excellence Partnership to Enhance General Aviation Safety, Accessibility and Sustainability (PEGASAS), and will be led by Purdue University, The Ohio State University and the Georgia Institute of Technology. The core team also will include the Florida Institute of Technology, Iowa State University and Texas A&M University. Affiliate members include: Arizona State University, Florida A&M, Hampton University, Kent State University, North Carolina A&T State University, Oklahoma State University, Southern Illinois University (Carbondale), Tufts University, Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota, Duluth.

    The FAA’s COE program is a cost-sharing research partnership between academia, industry and the federal government. Research and development efforts by PEGASAS will cover a broad spectrum of general aviation safety issues, including airport technology, propulsion and structures, airworthiness, flight safety, fire safety, human factors, system safety management and weather.
    The PEGASAS university members all have nationally recognized collegiate flight education programs, and three of the core members (Purdue, Ohio State and Texas A&M) also own and operate their own airports. Research projects will be performed through a partnership of principal investigators from the different universities. PEGASAS will engage both graduate-level and undergraduate students in its research activities.

    “The FAA continues its goal of working to reduce general aviation fatalities by 10 percent over a 10-year period, from 2009 to 2018,” said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “The Center of Excellence program is a valuable tool in providing the critical data we need to reduce those accidents.”

    PEGASAS industry and organizational partners are GE Aviation; Battelle Memorial Institute; NetJets Inc.; Cessna; Gulfstream; Piper; Raytheon; Rockwell Collins; Cirrus; Flight Safety Foundation; Guardian Mobility; Harris Corporation; Jet Aviva; NextGen AeroSciences; Nelson
    Consulting; Rolls-Royce; The Spectrum Group; Take Flight Solutions; Woolpert; the Flight Deck Display Research Laboratory at NASA Ames; Columbus Regional, South Bend and Fort Wayne Airports; Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Indiana Departments of Transportation; the National Business Aviation Association; the National Intercollegiate Flying Association; and Ohio Aerospace Institute. These non-federal affiliates will provide matching contributions to help offset the FAA’s investment in the COE’s general aviation research initiatives.

    The FAA established the first Center of Excellence for General Aviation in 2001 through a 10-year agreement to conduct general aviation research in airport and aircraft safety areas. The research topics included pilot training, human factors, weather, Automatic Dependent Surveillance/Broadcast (ADS-B), remote airport lighting systems and other matters.

    As the first Center of Excellence for General Aviation research concludes, the new team will continue critical research, testing and education efforts. The FAA intends to invest a minimum of $500,000 per year during the first five years of the new, 10-year agreement with PEGASAS.
    Congress authorized Air Transportation Centers of Excellence under the Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering and Development Authorization Act of 1990. This legislation enables the FAA to work with university partners and industry affiliates to conduct research in airspace and airport planning and design, environment and aviation safety, as well as to engage in other activities to assure a safe and efficient air transportation system.

    The FAA has established Centers of Excellence in eight other topic areas, focusing on commercial space transportation, airliner cabin environment and intermodal research, aircraft noise and aviation emissions mitigation, computational modeling of aircraft structures, advanced materials, airport pavement and airport technology, operations research and airworthiness assurance.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • FAA Aviation Safety Rating for Kenya

    The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration has announced that Kenya complies with international safety standards. Kenya has been granted a Category 1 rating under the International Aviation Safety Assessment program.

    Kenya’s civil aviation authority meets International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. With a Category 1 rating, Kenyan air carriers can secure FAA and DOT authority can establish service to the United States and carry the code of U.S. carriers.

    The FAA had not previously assessed Kenya’s civil aviation authority for compliance with ICAO standards. The rating is based on a February, 2017 FAA assessment of the safety oversight provided by Kenya’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation.

    The agency assesses the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that have applied to fly to the United States, currently conduct operations to the United States, or participate in code sharing arrangements with U.S. partner airlines, and makes that information available to the public. The assessments determine if foreign civil aviation authorities meet ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations.

    To maintain a Category 1 rating, a country must adhere to ICAO safety standards, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.

    IASA information is posted at www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa/.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.