Fine Against Mainline Carrier Nearly $1 Million

The FAA is proposing two civil penalties totaling $987,500 against Delta Air Lines of Atlanta, for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737-800 on flights when they were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. The agency has also proposed a fine of $185,750 Civil Penalty Against Kingfisher Air Services.

In the first Delta case, the FAA alleges Delta failed to repair a chip in the nose radome, or nose cone, on the B-737 after an FAA inspector conducted a pre-flight inspection and informed Delta he had observed chip damage. Delta’s structural repair manual requires the airline to seal radome chip damage before further flight. The enroute inspection took place Feb. 25, 2010, and the airline operated the plane on 20 additional flights between that date and March 1 while the aircraft was not in compliance.

The FAA further alleges Delta again failed to repair the radome during layover inspections of the aircraft on Feb. 25 and 28. The proposed civil penalty is $687,500.

“Safety is our highest priority,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta. “Operators must follow the proper procedures to maintain their aircraft.”

The FAA also proposes a civil penalty of $300,000 against Delta for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 on 884 flights between May 25, 2010 and Jan. 3, 2011, when it was not in compliance with FAA regulations. The FAA alleges the carrier incorrectly deferred repair of a broken cockpit floodlight socket at the first officer’s position. Maintenance procedures allow the airline to defer repairs on a dome light for no more than 10 days before repairing or replacing it.  The FAA discovered the alleged violation during a routine inspection.

The proposed fine against Kingfisher Kingfisher Air Services Air Safari, Inc., of San Juan, P.R., is for allegedly operating a Cessna 208B on 44 flights between June 2 and June 11, 2010, when it was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.

The FAA alleges that three pilots reported that the aircraft’s engine temperature exceeded the take-off limits before the carrier took the required maintenance action and had the engine repaired. The engine maintenance manual requires the operator to send the engine to an overhaul facility for a light overhaul when such problems are reported. The carrier failed to send the engine for overhaul after the first and second pilot reports.

Both airlines have 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.

FMI: www.faa.gov