Ascent Aviation Solutions Ordered To Pay Hefty Fines | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-11.03.25

AirborneNextGen-
11.04.25

Airborne-Unlimited-11.05.25

Airborne-Unlimited-11.06.25

AirborneUnlimited-10.17.25

Affordable Flying Expo Tickets (Discount Code: AFE2025): CLICK HERE!
LIVE MOSAIC Town Hall, 1800ET, 11.07.25: www.airborne-live.net

Tue, Jul 06, 2021

Ascent Aviation Solutions Ordered To Pay Hefty Fines

Jury Finds Webster, TX, Aviation Biz Liable For Violating FARs

Ascent Aviation Solutions LLC and its owner have been ordered to pay nearly $240,000 in penalties for violating safety regulations, announced acting U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

Michael King had been operating the Webster-based company as a direct air carrier without the necessary FAA certification. A direct air carrier is one who provides, or offers to provide, air transportation and who maintains control over the operational functions performed in providing the transportation. In order to operate as a direct air carrier, one must hold an FAA-issued certificate after demonstrating they meet the requisite requirements.

The jury heard that Ascent used what is known in the industry as a “dry lease” to circumvent the FAA requirements for direct air carriers. Under such lease, the lessee simply leases the equipment and is responsible for all aspects of operational control of the plane.

Authorities learned of the illegal charter operation and checked one of the flights. At that time, they found evidence of a sham lease agreement between themselves and an unsuspecting third party.

That party did not have operational control of the plane. Testimony revealed he only paid Ascent to fly him from one city to another. The jury heard Ascent retained operational control of the aircraft meaning Ascent, not the passenger, handled all flight logistics including hiring the pilots.

Further investigation revealed King and Ascent had operated 14 unregulated charter flights which all had the potential to endanger public safety. The jury ultimately found King and his company liable for violating 14 FAA regulations, including one for the careless and reckless operation of a plane. They were ordered to pay $239,872.

The FAA conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ariel N. Wiley, Julie Redlinger and Keith Wyatt represented the United States during the proceedings. 

FMI: www.justice.gov, www.faa.gov

Advertisement

More News

Airborne-NextGen 11.04.25: Anduril YFQ-44A, Merlin SOI 2, UAV Rulemaking Stalled

Also: Horizon Picks P&W PT6A, Army Buys 3 EagleNXT, First Hybrid-Electric Regional, Army Selects AEVEX Anduril Industries’ YFQ-44A Collaborative Combat Aircraft was flown>[...]

NTSB Prelim: Elmore Travis C Searey

While Flying North Along The Beach At About 300 Ft Above Ground Level, The Pilot Reported That The Engine RPM Dropped To About Idle On September 28, 2025, at 1126 eastern daylight >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (11.03.25)

Aero Linx: European Association of Aviation Training and Educational Organisations (EATEO) Welcome to the “ European Association of Aviation Training and Education Organizati>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (11.03.25): On-Course Indication

On-Course Indication An indication on an instrument, which provides the pilot a visual means of determining that the aircraft is located on the centerline of a given navigational t>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (11.03.25)

“It also gives us the hard data we need to shape requirements, reduce risk, and ensure the CCA program delivers combat capability on a pace and scale that keeps us ahead of t>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC