No Criminal Charges for Alaska Air | 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

Wed, Aug 13, 2003

No Criminal Charges for Alaska Air

Criminal Phase of Pt Mugu Crash Litigation Closes

When Alaska Air Flight 261 went into the ocean off Pt Mugu on January 31, 2000, that event triggered a powderkeg of allegations and suspicions surrounding the airline's maintenance procedures. Action by the U.S. Attorney's Office for Northern California two weeks ago finally put the lid back on, without ignition.

The US Attorney decided not to press criminal charges against the airline.

It's been more than half a year sonce the NTSB closed its investigation into that crash that claimed 88 lives; the airline said in a statement to the SEC, "The U.S. Attorney's Office informed Alaska that, after a review of all of the relevant information, it has concluded that the evidence does not warrant the filing of criminal charges, and it has closed its investigation into the Flight 261 accident."

The NTSB determined the cause of the crash was, "...a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly’s acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines’ insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly."

The Board added, "Contributing to the accident were Alaska Airlines’ extended lubrication interval and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) approval of that extension, which increased the likelihood that a missed or inadequate lubrication would result in excessive wear of the acme nut threads, and Alaska Airlines’ extended end play check interval and the FAA’s approval of that extension, which allowed the excessive wear of the acme nut threads to progress to failure without the opportunity for detection. Also contributing to the accident was the absence on the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 of a fail-safe mechanism to prevent the catastrophic effects of total acme nut thread loss."

In June, the airline decided to simply accept responsibility for the crash; Boeing too said it would not contest liability. There remains one unsettled case, of the 88 that were filed.

FMI: www.alaska-air.com

Advertisement

More News

NTSB Final Report: Douglas A-4K

Pilot Applied Full Aft Stick And Nose-Up Trim, But The Airplane Remained On The Runway Analysis: The pilot reported that a preflight inspection and flight control checks revealed n>[...]

ANN FAQ: Q&A 101

A Few Questions AND Answers To Help You Get MORE Out of ANN! 1) I forgot my password. How do I find it? 1) Easy... click here and give us your e-mail address--we'll send it to you >[...]

Classic Aero-TV: PBY Catalina--From Wartime to Double Sunrise to the Long Sunset

From 2022 (YouTube Edition): Before They’re All Gone... Humankind has been messing about in airplanes for almost 120-years. In that time, thousands of aircraft representing i>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (07.01.25): Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) A transportation system that transports people and property by air between two points in the NAS using aircraft with advanced technologies, including el>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (07.01.25)

Aero Linx: MQ-1B Predator The MQ-1B Predator is an armed, multi-mission, medium-altitude, long-endurance remotely piloted aircraft that is employed primarily as an intelligence-col>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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