CHQ Fined by FAA for Maintenance

[ABC123]

Very Interesting:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201004271320/BUSINESS/4270394

 

[BoilerUP]

Chautauqua has INS in their 145s???

 

[Mike man]

INS in the 145...

I think the FAA is equally to blame...how did the FSDO or inspector sign off on the airplanes...or with the CRJ it kind of seems like the FAA approved a MX program, then went back and said our bad you needed to do an inspection that you didn't know about and we signed off on your program but here is a big fine anyway.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Very Interesting:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201004271320/BUSINESS/4270394

I don't think it's interesting. I think it's down right boring. Same ********************, different airline.

 

[CX880]

Chautauqua has INS in their 145s???

yea the CRJ-145 flux capacitor stilll runs on windows 95

 

[UnstableAviator]

No INS, but probably talking about the AHRS.

 

[nimtz]

Shucks, this might hurt chances of repeating as regional airline of the year!

 

[kmox29]

INS in the 145...

I think the FAA is equally to blame...how did the FSDO or inspector sign off on the airplanes...or with the CRJ it kind of seems like the FAA approved a MX program, then went back and said our bad you needed to do an inspection that you didn't know about and we signed off on your program but here is a big fine anyway.

It wasn't the actual maintenance program that was at fault. It was the carrier's management of that program. The FAA can do a lot of things, but telling a carrier how to manage their company or programs are not some of them.

...you needed to do an inspection that you didn't know about...

So Chautauqua doesn't know about Airworthiness Directives that are issued for their fleets?

 

[Mike man]

It wasn't the actual maintenance program that was at fault. It was the carrier's management of that program. The FAA can do a lot of things, but telling a carrier how to manage their company or programs are not some of them.

If the company wants to poop, they have to run it by the FAA. The FAA's job as far as a 121 carrier is concerned is to approve how the company manages a maintenance program and to approve the way the program is run (among other things).

So Chautauqua doesn't know about Airworthiness Directives that are issued for their fleets?

The same way SWA and AA didn't know about the AD's...the FAA guy managing the Company-FAA maintenance program signed off on them.

 

[kmox29]

If the company wants to poop, they have to run it by the FAA.

Entirely incorrect. In reality, there are very few items that an air carrier has to obtain FAA approval on.

Most manuals are "accepted" by the respective FAA Certificate Office. For instance, the carrier can make any changes they want to the Flight Operations Manual, the FAA can only make suggestions for the carrier if they find something the don't like.

The FAA's job as far as a 121 carrier is concerned is to approve how the company manages a maintenance program and to approve the way the program is run (among other things).

Epic fail here. The FAA does not approve management styles. Nor are they allowed to approve or disapprove the way a program is run.

IF a program needs FAA approval, they will approve the program's design. If the carrier fails to properly manage that program or fails to run the program as designed, the responsibility is on the carrier, not the FAA. If the program's design is faulty, then the FAA shares in the responsibility.

I don't have all the details in Chautauqua's maintenance program, but I wouldn't think it would ignore ADs. If it does, then yes, the FAA shares the blame.

The same way SWA and AA didn't know about the AD's...the FAA guy managing the Company-FAA maintenance program signed off on them.

SWA was (correctly so) a black eye on parts of the FAA. There was a lot more going on with that than simply not following an AD.

But addressing AD compliance, how would you (as an operator) try and blame the FAA because you failed to comply with an AD?