Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
$2.4M fine for unapproved temp gauge
FAA out there saving lives one fine at a time
- Thread starter Let'sgoflying!
- Start date
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,235
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
Given the time difference between the installation of the gauge and the start of the flights the FAA is fining them for, I'm guessing that they were told specifically at some point that operating the plane was illegal (maybe after it was noticed on a checkride) and they decided to to it anyway, and now the FAA is trying to make an example of them.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,235
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
There are certain things that require the FAA to post a public notice of a fine. I'm sure they're not interested in litigating it in the court of public opinion, so they're just going to post what they have to and no more.
At first glance the fine does seem excessive. Which reminds me of a related point: in 2019 the SCOTUS case Timbs v Indiana (unanimously!) incorporated the 8th amendment and put excessive fines within its purview. So people subjected to this kind of thing have more of a fighting chance than previously. And in aviation-related content, this year the SCOTUS will hear Jouppi v Alaska, the Alaskan bush pilot whose plane was confiscated because he was flying into a dry village when a passenger had beer in his luggage.
ateamer
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,991
- Location
- Port St. Lucie, FL
- Display Name
- ateamer
- Home Airfield
- FD88
What’s the back story on this? I suspect we’re missing reams of details.
There was a skydiving operation that was hit with a similar proposed fine a few years back. It was the last straw in a long series of pencilwhipped annuals.
I bet this case is like when they got Al Capone on tax evasion. There are likely multiple, ongoing violations that they were given chances and frirndly advice to correct but kept going. Wouldn’t be the first time.
There was a skydiving operation that was hit with a similar proposed fine a few years back. It was the last straw in a long series of pencilwhipped annuals.
I bet this case is like when they got Al Capone on tax evasion. There are likely multiple, ongoing violations that they were given chances and frirndly advice to correct but kept going. Wouldn’t be the first time.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Apparently, they got a 15% discount for violating an unimportant regulation.
What is not understood is that Part 13 and Order FAA Order 2150.3C dictate what the penalty and process is. 90% of violations start like this and typically end up much lower in the end. However, what this does tell me, the operator wasnt open to the initial discussions and called the FAA's bluff.
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,795
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
Which begs the question....why not just swap the damn gauge out?
JimBirk
Pre-takeoff checklist
Also mentioned in the FAA's notice was this:
"The FAA further alleges that Wings operated the unairworthy aircraft on approximately 280 flights between February 2023 and September 2024 in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property."
Does the "careless or reckless manner" just refer to flying with the unapproved temp gauge, or are they referring to some recklessness in addition to the temp gauge?
"The FAA further alleges that Wings operated the unairworthy aircraft on approximately 280 flights between February 2023 and September 2024 in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property."
Does the "careless or reckless manner" just refer to flying with the unapproved temp gauge, or are they referring to some recklessness in addition to the temp gauge?
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
You got to be a special kinda stupid to use unapproved parts in Part 141 / university flight school planes.
dans2992
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 4,313
- Display Name
- Dans2992
The TSOed gauge probably costs $10,000
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,028
- Display Name
- .
This appears to be the firm's web site (looks like it hasn't been updated in a while):
https://wingsflightschool.com/about/staff.php
Managed by a mother and daughter - actual owners of the LLC unknown.
Only management and instructors are listed on the staff but not maintenance personnel. So unknown who actually does the maintenance. A fleet of ten Cessnas, of which six are 172M models.
Personal observations, speculations, and opinions :
* In order to cite an unapproved temperature gauge (oil, OAT, EGT, or CHT?) in a single plane (in a fleet of ten) installed way back in October of 2022 required either a comprehensive audit of the logs of all the planes or a specific complaint from an individual with knowledge of that specific issue. Think the FAA wouldn't start an audit of all the planes on finding one issue that they'd want to hang a hefty fine?
* The fine violates the widely accepted principle that a punishment should be proportional to the harm caused. (Yes I know that principle is rarely applied anymore.)
* The phrase "careless or reckless manner" was deliberate ambiguity because the FAA had no issue being specific about the unapproved temperature gauge. If it was, say, the OAT then I'd say someone was out to squash that flight school out of existence. Even an unapproved oil temp gauge is a bit of a stretch. Unapproved doesn't mean it doesn't read correctly. Just ask experimental aircraft builders.
* It is up to the FAA to make its case and must do so by being more specific. When it issues a public accusation it must justify the magnitude of its proposed punishment. The release failed to do any of that. That's why so many are uncertain and believe there is more to the story. That's why the flight school should be presumed innocent - the presumption should NOT or EVER be that the FAA's mere accusation makes the accused guilty.
https://wingsflightschool.com/about/staff.php
Managed by a mother and daughter - actual owners of the LLC unknown.
Only management and instructors are listed on the staff but not maintenance personnel. So unknown who actually does the maintenance. A fleet of ten Cessnas, of which six are 172M models.
Personal observations, speculations, and opinions :
* In order to cite an unapproved temperature gauge (oil, OAT, EGT, or CHT?) in a single plane (in a fleet of ten) installed way back in October of 2022 required either a comprehensive audit of the logs of all the planes or a specific complaint from an individual with knowledge of that specific issue. Think the FAA wouldn't start an audit of all the planes on finding one issue that they'd want to hang a hefty fine?
* The fine violates the widely accepted principle that a punishment should be proportional to the harm caused. (Yes I know that principle is rarely applied anymore.)
* The phrase "careless or reckless manner" was deliberate ambiguity because the FAA had no issue being specific about the unapproved temperature gauge. If it was, say, the OAT then I'd say someone was out to squash that flight school out of existence. Even an unapproved oil temp gauge is a bit of a stretch. Unapproved doesn't mean it doesn't read correctly. Just ask experimental aircraft builders.
* It is up to the FAA to make its case and must do so by being more specific. When it issues a public accusation it must justify the magnitude of its proposed punishment. The release failed to do any of that. That's why so many are uncertain and believe there is more to the story. That's why the flight school should be presumed innocent - the presumption should NOT or EVER be that the FAA's mere accusation makes the accused guilty.
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,795
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
Here's an interesting look into the dynamics of that school.
Wings Flight School has trained local pilots for over a decade
The Wings Flight School at the Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville has been training students for more than a decade. The FAA-certified school has 11 airplanes, two simulators and nine instructors who are generally training 35-40 students. There…
www.thereporter.com
The school obviously thinks they are correct so they have taken the challenge to the next level. And this is typically how it starts per the existing guidance. More than likely all their 172s probably have the same indicator installed to push it.
Yes as that is the only regulation that will cover operating with an airworthiness issue.
Part 141 schools usually have an assigned ASI from the local FSDO just like a Part 135 ops. So there is regular oversight and review. So probably this discussion as been ongoing since 2022 with no current administative resolution possible
Not quite. The fine is calculated per the existing guidance found in Part 13 and Order FAA Order 2150.3. Its pretty straight forward and how all similar actions start once they reach this level.
As to the unapproved indicator being a stretch, not really as the aircraft no longer conforms to its type design which is the first thing of it being considered airworthy. E/AB aircraft dont have that conformity requirement which is why its acceptable to use the indicator.
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
The bizarre thing is that the unapproved gauge was most likely actually far better in quality and accuracy than any oem, ~1980 (yes that's almost 50 years old) gauge!
Defies common sense.
I'd like to see how the FAA shows people were at risk in this.
Total government excess.
Defies common sense.
I'd like to see how the FAA shows people were at risk in this.
Total government excess.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
OK, did the owner submit to the FAA the documentation that proves "most likely actually far better" and request the modification?
Defies procedure. The FAA already list out how to make changes in type designs and how to proceed. Should anyone be able to home brew their own alterations on certified aircraft and disregard governing regulations?
It's all in the applicable regulations. And for those who wish not to be bound by these regulations the FAA already has a solution for that: Experimental.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think everyone here is well aware of the issue from any regulatory aspect, who but pilots are better at being wannabe lawyers and regulation nannies?
I was speaking more from an after-the-dust-settles approach to this issue, a very practical look - Who was hurt? What was the risk? Is any temp gauge every going to truly justify a ridiculous penalty as this?
Simple. Per the FAA, the operator improperly altered the aircraft type design, which makes the AWC ineffective, which is considered careless under Part 91.13.
Part 91.13 is the catchall rule used in these situations vs having 1000s of rules for specific issues.And allowing unsuspecting students into this unairworthy aircraft is the risk.
There isnt a an after the dust settles view as that is for civil courts to decide. The penalty only applies to the operator not following the regulations vs whether the temp indicator is good or bad. And the fine cost is directly related to the 280 flights they flew in that condition as calculated per guidance.
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
Or it was cheap Chinesium. I'm not sure how we could know which is most likely from here.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,470
- Display Name
- MountainDude
- Home Airfield
- KPDX
I suspect that:
- Someone reported them to FAA
- FAA investigated and requested changes
- The school thought it could use some paperwork to justify cheaper gauges
- The FAA finally sent them the fine
While I think this is probably an egregious use of power, we have to follow the law, otherwise it's a slippery slope. If we want a change, we have to change the law.
- Someone reported them to FAA
- FAA investigated and requested changes
- The school thought it could use some paperwork to justify cheaper gauges
- The FAA finally sent them the fine
While I think this is probably an egregious use of power, we have to follow the law, otherwise it's a slippery slope. If we want a change, we have to change the law.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
It's not a matter of being "regulation nannies". It's a matter of following the regulations as prescribed which doesn't seem to be a problem for most. But in the last 5 decades I've been involved in aviation there are always those who want the shortcut or creatively circumvent what is written and works for others.
The "practical look" is all right there and should have been followed to begin with.
And as previously noted, there is much, much more to this story.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
It's a Part 141 school and has principal inspectors assigned to oversee the operation. No doubt that during a routine inspection the gauge was noted and a request for documentation was requested.
Yes, see above. No doubt the principal ASI wanted to know how this change occurred. But also noted how many flights took place, which could have been before the discovery, during the discovery or after. In amongst all of that we don't know what transpired, but it's safe to assume the owner/operator did not want to rectify the situation leading to the FAA to proceed to enforcement.
It's all in the details.
Not really as the ASIs are bound by their rules to follow when something is found, ie., Order 8900.1 and 2150.3. Here is a link to an overview on the process, but to note it does not include the initial operator/FSDO interaction prior to it gets to legal.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ractice_areas/enforcement/enforcement_actions
GaryM
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2020
- Messages
- 3,099
- Location
- Was KMMU, now KCOE
- Display Name
- Gary M
- Home Airfield
- Was KMMU, now KCOE
Those are valid reasons to impose A fine, but not THIS fine. At least I doubt the law specifies $2.4 MM for an unapproved temp gauge. The egregious use of power wasn’t in imposing the fine, it was in setting the dollar amount
bonefishpete
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,388
- Display Name
- Bonefishpete
“temperature gauge in a Cessna 172M Skyhawk “
Should be a crime the FAA and government allow rules that makes flight schools have to use 50 year old aircraft because new ones are out of their reach cost wise for only the most affluent fight schools.
When I trained I used 1-2 year old Cessna’s and thought nothing of it. My Son trained in 20-25 year old Cessna’s.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Yeah, except it's not actually a "$2.4M fine for unapproved temp gauge." It's a $2.4M fine for illegally providing at least 280 instructional flights in unairworthy aircraft over the course of a year and a half.
bonefishpete
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,388
- Display Name
- Bonefishpete
But did they die?
A statutory defined “unairworthy” aircraft is not the same as a physical reality. Having flown 280 flights has proven out that the plane was in fact physically airworthy.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
*regulatory capture has entered the chat*
In "Might makes Right" 2026 we're well beyond past that, we've probably lapped it once already.
bonefishpete
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,388
- Display Name
- Bonefishpete
I remember my mechanic when faced with a OH running hot would install a NAPA mechanical temperature gauge, run the dial just out the top of cowling, tape it down in front of windscreen and go fly. Oh My
Last edited:
No specific law, but the regulatory guidance under the law does provide a penalty range depending on owner or operator type. And if I recall for individuals and defined small businesses that range is $1000 to $15000 per violation. And there is a defined procedure how the penalty is calculated.
Incorrect. It is physically unairworthy as it does not conform to its type design which is the first half of the airworthy definition... and the main reason for the penalty.
And?
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
its interesting how it isn't specific about which temperature gauge. this makes me think its probably the most innocent one...the vent integrated one...
I think the 172Ms were still running that.
I think the 172Ms were still running that.
Roger Wilco
Line Up and Wait
Opinion capture has entered the chat (way back at post #2). But opinions do not matter. The only things that matter are whether the operator was in compliance, and if not, how it responded after being notified of alleged non-compliance.
Aviation is highly regulated, and the rules/regulations are readily available to anyone and everyone with an interest. For commercial operators, it's a challenging environment to succeed in. The holder of a Part 141 certificate knows (or should know), going in, what the rules are. They likewise know, or should know, that maintaining an aircraft in compliance with applicable airworthiness requirements is a necessary cost of doing business, a cost that has a significant impact on the balance sheet. And they know, or should know. that the consequences of non-compliance can be severe--especially if the non-compliance is willful or egregious. Those who are unwilling to accept this reality should find other business pursuits.
midwestpa24
Final Approach
If "But did you die?" becomes the measure of whether or not a regulation should exist, we are in trouble. Lots of things will work, until they don't. Aviation is highly regulated, that isn't news. If you are operating a business in aviation you know that. Yet there are operators always looking to bend or even break the rules to save a buck. This isn't about a temp gauge, this is a certified flight school knowingly violating a regulation, repeatedly. The fact it went as far as it did speaks more to the behavior and attitude of the operator rather than a mere oversight.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
OK, so which rules made the flight school "have to use" 50 year old aircraft? Which rules prohibit a business from buying/leasing newer aircraft?
Tools
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,929
- Display Name
- Tools
ALL OF THESE things are what the faa REGULARLY summarily ignores… without consequence. Systemically.
There’s a problem more severe than this in EVERY flight school bird in existence.
Ya, there’s more to the story. Well, actually, there is an accurate story somewhere, this just likely ain’t it.