FAA Can't Prove It Inspected USAirways Maintenance Contractor | 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-12.01.25

AirborneNextGen-
12.02.25

Airborne-Unlimited-11.19.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-11.20.25

AirborneUnlimited-11.21.25

LIVE MOSAIC Town Hall (Archived): www.airborne-live.net

Tue, May 13, 2003

FAA Can't Prove It Inspected USAirways Maintenance Contractor

Inspector Says He Was There Before Flight 5481 Crashed

It's an embarrassing situation - one that could have career implications for a particular FAA inspector. Jerry Unruh was supposed to have inspected a maintenance provider subcontracted for the airline by Raytheon. Unruh was supposed to have inspected the subcontractor in Huntington (WV) twice before US Airways Express Flight 5481 crashed upon take-off at Charlotte-Douglas Airport Jan. 8. He was supposed to have inspected the West Virginia facility at least once after that. But FAA documents obtained by The Charlotte Observer indicate otherwise.

Re-entered Records

Unruh told The Observer he remembers traveling from his home base in Wichita (KS) to Structureal Modification And Repair Technicians before the Huntington facility started taking sub-contractor work from Raytheon. But when The Charlotte Observer asked the FAA for records of the visits prior to the Jan. 8 crash, administration officials couldn't produce them.

Instead, the paper reports, Unruh apparently went back into the FAA computer and entered information from the inspections on May 2 - after he had been interviewed by reporters. When asked about pre-dating that inspection report, Unruh refused comment.

Two days after Flight 5481 crashed, killing all 21 on board, FAA inspectors did make a documented visit to the SMART plant. There, a mechanic who worked on the Beech 1900 told them he remembered adjusting the commuter's control cables, but expected his supervisor to check the work before the aircraft was sent back into service. That supervisor check was apparently never made. The last flight of the Beech 1900 was its first fully-loaded flight since the cables had been adjusted.

Now, the NTSB is focused on those very control cables, as the board conducts a public hearing on the Charlotte crash May 20. Board members will also hear from expert witnesses who believe the load on board 5481 exceeded the Beech 1900's 17,120 gross maximum.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.01.25): Convective SIGMET

Convective SIGMET A weather advisory concerning convective weather significant to the safety of all aircraft. Convective SIGMETs are issued for tornadoes, lines of thunderstorms, e>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (12.01.25)

Aero Linx: United Flying Octogenarians WELCOME to a most extraordinary group of aviators, the United Flying Octogenarians (UFO). Founded in 1982 with just a handful of pilots, we h>[...]

NTSB Final Report: Remos Aircraft GmbH Remos GX

Pilot’s Decision To Attempt Takeoff With Frost Covering The Airplane’s Wings Analysis: The pilot of the light sport airplane was preparing to depart for a cross-country>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (12.02.25)

“We’ve paid for the cable line’s repair for the customer and have apologized for the inconvenience this caused them...” Source: Some followup info from an A>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.02.25): Coupled Approach

Coupled Approach An instrument approach performed by the aircraft autopilot, and/or visually depicted on the flight director, which is receiving position information and/or steerin>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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