Friday, July 25, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 24 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

FAA: Hawaiian Air failed to inspect plane properly

By Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 04:32 p.m. HST, Apr 14, 2014

The Federal Aviation Administration said that Hawaiian Airlines went eight years without properly inspecting components of one of its planes used for commercial flights, and proposed a fine of nearly $548,000 for the airline.

The agency said on Monday that the Honolulu-based airline did not comply with a July 2000 directive that required inspections of specific engine thrust reverser components. The directive was intended to prevent a portion of the thrust reverser from coming off in flight, which could cause a rapid decompression of the aircraft.

According to the FAA, a July 2012 inspection found that Hawaiian Airlines' records indicated that the directive did not apply to the aircraft, and the airline operated a Boeing 767-300 on more than 5,000 flights between July 2004 and July 2012 when it was out of compliance.

The agency also said that Hawaiian flew the aircraft on 14 passenger flights after the agency alerted the carrier, and failed to keep records on the directive for the aircraft.

Airline and FAA officials said the company asked for an informal meeting to discuss the matter.

An airline spokeswoman declined comment on the allegations.

More From The Star-Advertiser

Alleged incompliance prompts $547K fine

 Print   Email   Comment | View 24 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
mutsrus wrote:
Profit over Safety
on April 14,2014 | 12:01PM
HanabataDays wrote:
Well, all we learn from the article so far can be characterized as "he said, she said". Won't be able to judge the merits until the details come out. What's Hawaiian's interpretation of why they could skip this particular inspection? Why specifically is the FAA disputing it? More info needed.
on April 14,2014 | 12:10PM
false wrote:
What the H--! It may be time for many to start looking for another carrier.
on April 14,2014 | 12:37PM
Readitnow wrote:
I seriously doubt that Hawaiian didn't inspect these components in 8 years. Also wonder why the FAA didn't do a follow up and ask why the plane component wasn't being inspected sooner. Anyway, as the chant goes … always forward … never backward … that's the old Hawaiian way.
on April 14,2014 | 01:02PM
serious wrote:
Come on--it's simple--it was still during the Bush Administration--so he's to blame. I was a pilot--and an old saying was that when the weight of the paperwork was equal to the weight of the plane you can takeoff--every nut and bolt has to adhere to the latest directive--and yes--safety and cost are involved. Most of the time the pilots don't see the directives but the administrative people have to. Penalties go against the shareholders--put the leaders in jail and I can guarantee they will be adhered to.
on April 14,2014 | 03:39PM
turbolink wrote:
Hard to believe also that the aircraft had 5000 flight evolutions and FAA never checked compliance.
on April 14,2014 | 04:27PM
SueH wrote:
It's not a primary activity of the FAA to regularly check compliance on Airworthiness Directives and Service Bulletins, or they would be completely overwhelmed. This instance of "non compliance" was probably discovered in a routine records audit. It is the responsibility of maintenance personnel to FIRST determine if a particular A.D. is applicable to a certain aircraft, and if so, then proceed with compliance. If a mechanic believes a particular Airworthiness Directive does NOT APPLY to a specific model or serial number aircraft, that's the end of it....No action, or "compliance", is required if it does not apply in the first place. Hawaiian's Maintenance Department will have the opportunity to present their case, stating why they believe this A.D. is non-applicable to this model aircraft, and it will be up to the FAA to show how it IS......
on April 14,2014 | 07:51PM
Readitnow wrote:
So you're saying that when HA's stock goes down tomorrow, that I should back up my truck and load up? Gotcha! Ka Ching!
on April 14,2014 | 08:21PM
Hauolie wrote:
Poor quality control at the potential expense of customers and employee's. Glad someone is keeping an eye on Hawaiian as they don't seem to be able to manage themselves for safety.....Seems Profit and greed drive's the Hawaiian ivory tower.....
on April 14,2014 | 01:09PM
BuhByeAloha wrote:
This same issue happens hundreds of times a week at airlines around the country. Every airline tries to make everything absolutely perfect, and things might get missed. (Or the FAA missed something which happens a lot). But for you to say something as lame as that means one of two things. 1. You used to work for Aloha, and you're bitter. 2. You're upset that you don't get free flights outer Island and to Las Vegas, like we all should because we live Hawaii.
on April 14,2014 | 03:25PM
Readitnow wrote:
I agree. If you've ever worked with any Federal agency, then you know how picky it can get. You have to dot your i's and cross your t's exactly how they want it … or, you get fined. The wording in any Federal document can be confusing and misconstrued easily. These commercial planes are maintained to a high degree and I'm not worried flying them. These reverse thrusters are used all the time … you can feel and hear them upon landing on a short runway. Hey, so they are used mostly on the ground!
on April 14,2014 | 05:04PM
steveoctober wrote:
Fine will be paid by raising interisland fares, the usual way Hawaiian subsidizes its operations.
on April 14,2014 | 03:05PM
inverse wrote:
No wonder Haw Air has the best on time performance. Appears to cut some corners someplace to keep them number 1 for their company wide on-time performance
on April 14,2014 | 03:15PM
AhiPoke wrote:
Wow, this sounds like a really serious violation. I'm surprised with the relatively light fine when they flew the plane more than 5000 times when it was out of compliance.
on April 14,2014 | 03:17PM
hon2255 wrote:
Compromising Safety ? Come on Hawaiian Air!
on April 14,2014 | 03:19PM
bleedgreen wrote:
This is scary.
on April 14,2014 | 03:22PM
eoe wrote:
I will just start flying Aloh... oh, wait.
on April 14,2014 | 03:29PM
scooters wrote:
Oh and now Hawaiian will be raising the fares to recoup the fine. Shame on you for putting the flying public in danger !
on April 14,2014 | 03:50PM
samidunn wrote:
They must have done something to piss Obama off. FAA like all federal agencies these days is out of control.
on April 14,2014 | 06:21PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
All of a sudden go! is looking much better.
on April 14,2014 | 06:27PM
Readitnow wrote:
I agree. Away from the islands and on the mainland.
on April 14,2014 | 09:23PM
thruthful wrote:
In a kingdom of blinds, the one with one eye is the king. Hawaiian is an OK airline, with lousy on board service and an abusive attitude commons of those in a position of monopoly. They undeservedly wear the badge of "the best on time performances". Of course, they fly between destinations with the best weather in the nation! As for not properly inspecting some components? Well, this I have hard time believing it.
on April 14,2014 | 08:33PM
environmental_lady wrote:
This is real scary. Here I thought that Hawaiian Airlines is the safest airline since it never incurred fatalities. Well, it sounds like sheer luck that none of its planes crashed so far. Well, are they going to fix this now? Are we going to be safe in the future?
on April 14,2014 | 09:52PM
BuhByeAloha wrote:
Sheer luck? Maybe you should just fly GO!
on April 15,2014 | 03:58PM
Breaking News