FAA out there saving lives one fine at a time

[Doc Holliday]

* 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.

How do you know they weren't more specific? Do you have access to the investigation?

And how do you know this is a "mere accusation"? Again, if you have access to the investigation such as the summary and the IOP's (items of proof) as well as all the correspondence, plus the statements of those involved, please fill us in.

 

[bonefishpete]

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?

I guess we did things different back when.

 

[Bell206]

I guess we did things different back when.

So what makes you that still doesnt happen today? And how does a mechanic troubleshooting an engine problem have anything to do with a 141 flight operating for months with a supposed improper temp indicator?

But we dont know is why the flight school has allowed this to reach this level, which may change the whole narrative.

 

[bonefishpete]

So what makes you that still doesnt happen today? And how does a mechanic troubleshooting an engine problem have anything to do with a 141 flight operating for months with a supposed improper temp indicator?

But we dont know is why the flight school has allowed this to reach this level, which may change the whole narrative.

I will admit there’s maybe something bigger than a unapproved temp gauge going on.

 

[Lindberg]

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.

Did they discount the first few students in exchange for being test pilots? Did they even tell them the plane was unairworthy?

 

[Clip4]

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.

Or the school received a warning on a previous unapproved part violation and this is a recurring theme at the flight school.

 

[Mikey52]

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

It's a $10,000 per occurrence civil fine. 280 flights at $10,000 is 2.8 million. They are getting a discount.

 

[Keye]

The fine is still probably cheaper than it would have cost to get an alternate gauge approved with an STC. Airplane would probably still be sitting AOG waiting for the paperwork to be finished too. Maybe this process is what the FAA should be concentrating on?

 

[Lindberg]

The fine is still probably cheaper than it would have cost to get an alternate gauge approved with an STC. Airplane would probably still be sitting AOG waiting for the paperwork to be finished too. Maybe this process is what the FAA should be concentrating on?

Was that their only other option? And are you considering the possibility that it would have cost infinite money to get the alternate gauge approved because it was complete crap?

We really do not have enough facts to determine who's right or wrong here, but the flight school will get the opportunity to plead its case.

 

[Keye]

Yes, I was being a bit facetious there. The maintenance paperwork (if any) will tell the real tale. Perhaps the flight school was unaware the gauge installation was not proper, and whoever performed the replacement had improper paperwork, or simply misunderstood the regulations. The world may never know.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, I was being a bit facetious there. The maintenance paperwork (if any) will tell the real tale. Perhaps the flight school was unaware the gauge installation was not proper, and whoever performed the replacement had improper paperwork, or simply misunderstood the regulations. The world may never know.

If that were the case the owner/operator would have been afforded the opportunity to return the aircraft to service using the correct parts and the worse outcome would have been a letter of correction or counseling.

For this case to have made it to the stage of the owner/operator being fined tells us the owner/operator wasn't being cooperative which in turn forced this into an enforcement case.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/cp

Compliance Program​

Our objective is to identify safety issues that underlie deviations from standards and correct them as effectively, quickly, and efficiently as possible. Our approach to compliance stresses a collaborative problem-solving approach (i.e., engagement, root-cause analysis, transparency, and information exchange) where the goal is to enhance the safety performance of individuals and organizations. An open and transparent exchange of information requires mutual cooperation and trust that can be challenging to achieve in a traditional, enforcement-focused regulatory model.

The FAA's approach to compliance furthers the evolution toward a "just culture." The concept of a "just culture" is one that has both an expectation of, and an appreciation for, self-disclosure of errors. A "just culture" allows for due consideration of honest mistakes, especially in a complex environment like the National Airspace System (NAS). But even unintentional errors can have a serious adverse impact on safety, so we must ensure that the underlying safety concern is fixed every time.

In October of 2018, the FAA renamed the Compliance Philosophy to the Compliance Program to reflect the advanced integration of these concepts into the fabric of the Agency's mission. The underlying principals and oversight processes that form the foundation of FAA's approach to compliance have not changed under this new title. The FAA's updated approach to compliance has been in effect since 2015 and has become a stable and integral part of our risk management strategy.

The FAA expects compliance to be the standard. Our evolved approach to oversight does not suggest that we are going easy on compliance. The FAA will continue to use legal enforcement actions (such as certificate suspensions and civil penalties) when needed. These actions remain an option for those who will not or cannot comply, and in cases where legal enforcement is required by law. Additionally, FAA will maintain strict accountability for inappropriate risk-taking behaviors and will have zero tolerance for intentional or reckless behavior.

Under the Compliance Program, the goal is to achieve rapid compliance, to eliminate a safety risk or deviation, and to ensure positive and permanent changes. As such, while legal enforcement action will be used when necessary, it is not the only means to address noncompliance.

In some cases, a Compliance Action is not an option, especially in cases where FAA personnel are required by law to proceed with enforcement.

 

[Keye]

For this case to have made it to the stage of the owner/operator being fined tells us the owner/operator wasn't being cooperative which in turn forced this into an enforcement case.

Quite likely. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Bell206]

The fine is still probably cheaper than it would have cost to get an alternate gauge approved with an STC.

Not really. Even without knowing which temp indicator it is, no indicator in that vintage 172 would require an STC to change it.

Perhaps the flight school was unaware the gauge installation was not proper, and whoever performed the replacement had improper paperwork, or simply misunderstood the regulations.

Except they knew about the installation in question long before the Enforcement Division got involved to issue a civil penalty which is not done at the FSDO level.

The world may never know.

If the school decides to appeal the penalty then the world might just find out more as that info typically is posted. But considering 95% of FAA violations are handled at the FSDO level, there must be more to this unless the issue also reached to the level of a Title 49 USC violation. Who knows.

 

[Brad Smith]

What if you knew that the B757 you were about to fly in was using unapproved EGT gauges? Or that if the static system was routinely checked with a test box that was not within calibration date? Would that ruffle your feathers? What kind of fine would you assess?

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

$2.4m fine done for a pressure gauge? Yea, that makes sense.

It’s amazing the FAA is so proactive at enforcement in GA, yet does little or nothing meaningful in actually help increase safety and save lives when it comes to known hazards of their own making. I mentioned earlier FAA’s own study identifying GA’s most common factors of accidents and how they can be mitigated…..one of the primary crash factors was pilot disorientation related and work load, and their own stated most practical solution was development of a primary affordable auto pilot… which they determined in same report that the reason there isn’t was due to FAA certification cost! The report did not say anything about fixing there own failures by reaching out to industry to partner a solution, they basically determined their own system kills pilots and passengers and that’s just the way it must be. It would be much like the FDA identifying a common cause of death and determining the pill was available but their own certification process was too expensive but did nothing. Note the FDA has fast track programs to work with industry to fix the issue.

I learned a lot about FAA ga culture at the FAA leadership levels during our v8 engine development….. it’s a corrupt bunch of bureaucrats and technocrats systemically protecting the legacy monopolies from anything that may help GA innovate and grow…. And they don’t want to spend any money on GA regardless of need.

After chronicling our issues dealing with this in a magazine article, naming names and calling these worthless corrupt leaders out, Washington FAA office sent 2 inspectors out for a surprise program inspection….. the only real response we got from FAA in over 5 years was one of intimidation. I reached out directly to current FAA administrator directly whom asked for specifics and stated I will her something back in near future…..that was several months ago and nothing. I tried to make formal complaints based on clear violations of FAA policies and professional standards with individuals, but got no replay.

The only way you can get FAA attention is to report yourself for a violation…. They will be there shortly. These old c172 engine temp gauges (I think op was re engine temp gauge) are 1940 capillary gauges that are fail passive components so its failure would not likely immediately cause a safety of flight issue … heck, most pilots don’t even notice it gets into red even if working until engine already overheated or showing signs of mechanical failure. These types of gauges have been around on every thing from farm gear to cars…. I would argue most substitutes could be signed off as owner produced part or candidate for field approval….. I get it’s not likely approved either way for the fined operator, but the fine amount is ridiculous and most such are negotiated down significantly after making the point and acting as a deterrence to others.

I wonder if they will take the fines and fund more DPEs or find ways to work with ga steak holders to promote ga or increase its safety?

 

[Doc Holliday]

I usually don’t hold my steak, I leave it on the plate and use a knife and fork.