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-06.23.25

Airborne-NextGen-06.24.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.25.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-06.26.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.27.25

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

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (06.30.25): Ground Stop (GS)

Ground Stop (GS) The GS is a process that requires aircraft that meet a specific criteria to remain on the ground. The criteria may be airport specific, airspace specific, or equip>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (06.30.25)

Aero Linx: Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) improves safety and public confidence in aviation, marine and rail transport thro>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (06.30.25)

“The Palo Alto stopover confirmed—yet again—that flight schools and aero-clubs are no longer just curious about electric training; they are ready to buy. In just >[...]

NTSB Final Report: ICON A5

Pilot’s Failure To Maintain Clearance From The Water While Flying At A Low Altitude Analysis: The flight of two airplanes was in cruise flight on a north heading about 50 ft >[...]

Airborne Affordable Flyers 06.26.25: PA18 Upgrades, ‘Delta Force’, Rhinebeck

Also: 48th Annual Air Race Classic, Hot Air Balloon Fire, FAA v Banning 100LL, Complete Remote Pilot The news Piper PA-18 Super Cub owners have been waiting for has finally arrived>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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