FAA proposes $269,000 fine against Parachute Center

[PhreeZone 15]

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2011/08/29/faa-proposes-269000-civil-penalty-against-the-parachute-center/

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $269,000 civil penalty against The Parachute Center, of Acampo, Calif., for allegedly operating a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter on 41 flights when it was not in compliance with federal aviation regulations.

The FAA alleges that The Parachute Center failed to comply with a 2009 Airworthiness Directive requiring repetitive inspections of the left and right front spar adapter assemblies to identify cracks that might threaten the structural integrity of the airplane. According to the FAA, the company operated the aircraft between November 2 and November 15, 2009, when it was out of compliance with the airworthiness directive.

The Parachute Center has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the Agency.

The operator had also been involved in a proposed fine of $664,000 in October 2010.



Here is a thread on the $664,000 dollar fine from last year that is locked: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3972072

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[pchapman 261]

I don't really recognize the names "The Parachute Center" or "Acampo"...

... but many of us do know it as Skydive Lodi.

[spootch 0]

anyone know what the outcome was of the 600,000+ buck fine?

[sacex250 0]

Quote

anyone know what the outcome was of the 600,000+ buck fine?

$500 Jump Tickets

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[spootch 0]

[Krip 2]

Hi PZ

"Required inspections on twin otters for cracks in spar adaptor assemblies."

Yikes There are a lot of twin otters in the skydiving fleet.

Whats a spar adaptor assembly?

One Jump Wonder

[totter 2]

Quote

Whats a spar adaptor assembly?

The spar adaptors can be thought of as gussets that tie the front spar, inner wing skin and end rib together for strength.

There are 3 spars in a Twin Otter wing.
1) The Front (or Nose) Spar. This runs from the engine nacelle to the end rib. The forward wing to fuselage attach fitting is on this spar. This spar also carries the primary thrust loads.
2) The Main Spar, which runs from the end rib to the tip. This is the primary wing structure that carries the flight load. The wing strut is attached to this spar.
3) Rear Spar. This runs from the end rib to the tip. The rear wing to fuselage attach fitting is on the spar.

[Ron 7]

Is this another separate issue, or just the same issue again?

It seems like a separate issue... I tend to recall that the old issue was elevator control cable.

If it is separate.... When will he learn?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Is this another separate issue, or just the same issue again?

That's a good question. It is confusing, but if you read this excerpt from an article published in response to the earlier fine, you notice it does mention ignored inspections on portions of the wing/spar -

Quote

The government alleges that The Parachute Center operated the aircraft on approximately 2,121 flights between March 21, 2008 and Nov. 4, 2009 with elevator control cables that were overdue for replacement and when the plane was not in compliance with airworthiness directives requiring visual inspections of the wing main spar, lower spar cap extensions and wing support strut for possible corrosion.

However, it also mentions a time period ending on Nov 4, 2009. Now if you read the new announcment in the OP, you'll notice they cite a time period beginning on Nov 2, 2009 and going forward from there.

To me, that leaves one of two possibilities.

1. The feds wrapped up their first investigation on 9/4/09, and then did not notify Bill until several weeks later. Looking back, they're making up for those few weeks where he continued to operate without the inspections. Personal opinion on this possibility - not likely. If the FAA uncovered an unsafe situation they feel is worth $664,000 in fines, they're going to put a stop to it the day they figure it out. They're not going to let the planes keep flying until things are fixed.

2. Bill didn't give two shits about the FAA and their fines, and flew the planes for a few more weeks after being notified on 9/4/09 before conducting the inspections. The FAA caught on, and is pissed. It might explain why the original fine was $664,000 for 18 months of ignored MX, and this fine is $269,00 for two weeks of operation without inspections.

In either case, it's amazing what people are willing to accept for cheap jumps. These planes aren't getting any younger, and things like inspections and replacement of life limited components only becomes that much more important as the airframes age.

Anyone remember that passenger jet that had a section of it's roof blow off over the pacific awhile back? It was traced to stress cracks in the airframe from years of use and pressurization/depressurization. Nobody ever thought it would happen, but age and use crept in and the 'unthinkable' became the reality.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Anyone remember that passenger jet that had a section of it's roof blow off over the pacific awhile back? It was traced to stress cracks in the airframe from years of use and pressurization/depressurization. Nobody ever thought it would happen, but age and use crept in and the 'unthinkable' became the reality.

Actually, the Aloha 737 that lost its upper fuselage was a known potential situation. Boeing knew about a defect in the sealing resins of early 737s and had issued service bulletins about inspections which the airline wasn't performing. The aircraft involved was well past its anticipated airframe cycle life and the lack of proper inspections allowed an unairworthy aircraft to continue in service until it finally failed.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[totter 2]

Quote

Is this another separate issue, or just the same issue again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's a good question. It is confusing

This is two seperate issues.
One of the first issues (ie original violations) concerned AD 2008-11-10, which was basically the same type of inspection, but different requirements.

In March of 2009 the FAA issued AD 2009-04-09, which supeceded AD 2008-11-10.
The Parachute Center had 180 days to comply with this new AD. That brings us to November and the time frame mentioned in the violation.
This second violation deals with the failure to comply with this newer AD and flying without it being completed in by November 2009.

[nickfrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this another separate issue, or just the same issue again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's a good question. It is confusing

This is two seperate issues.
One of the first issues (ie original violations) concerned AD 2008-11-10, which was basically the same type of inspection, but different requirements.

In March of 2009 the FAA issued AD 2009-04-09, which supeceded AD 2008-11-10.
The Parachute Center had 180 days to comply with this new AD. That brings us to November and the time frame mentioned in the violation.
This second violation deals with the failure to comply with this newer AD and flying without it being completed in by November 2009.

Not sure if i followed this right but are you saying these are new requirements imposed by the FAA, that Bill failed to follow after they were imposed?

[totter 2]

From what I understand in reading about the most recent fine and violation levied it was a new requirement (Airworthiness Directive) that was not complied with. New meaning at the time in 2009.

It was a new requirement the supercede an old one. Doesn't matter if the old requirement was complied with or not. The new AD takes presidence.

Quote

that Bill failed to follow after they were imposed?

The fact that a fine was levied and a violation entered into public record answers that one.

[nickfrey 0]

How are AD's handed down, does the owner/operator get a notification?

[vpjr 1]

The FAA used to notify the owner of aircraft new applicable ADs by mail. Now you can get an email. The mechanic that signs off the inspections must check that the airframe, engines, and accessories are in compliance with all past and current ADs. Not to give any one a pass but ADs can be written very complicated and it can be a full time job just to monitor a old multi engine turboprop aircraft's ADs, Life-limits, Calendar, hours, cycles, part power cycles, etc. Most FAA inspectors that walk up to our planes cant know all the required inspections and due times. They have to trust the aircrafts mechanic to have done it correctly or for them to do just an AD compliance check it would take 2 Gov employees and 6 months. Ive watched FAA Inspectors argue for an hour over the wording of an AD. Our old Multi engine turboprop aircraft have great dispatch rates and require less oily wrenching but still need skilled labor to monitor, schedule and preform inspections. Owners must keep the generated capital on hand to pay for required inspections, and replace timed out parts.
Seems common sense but it is easy for a reliable piece of equipment that doesn't break to go past time if know one is paying attention. The Cessna 182 keeps your attention because you have to keep putting parts that fall off back on and money in it Mon thru Fri.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

anyone know what the outcome was of the 600,000+ buck fine?

I think that dude will drag his feet, appeal, and stretch it all out as long as possible on that one! Wonder what having the second one on the heels will do for him in an appeal process though? Probably nothing good, I can imagine.... but never doubt the power of a good aviation law professional to get you out of a pile of poo you very knowingly worked your way in to!





Edited to add: Found another article from local Lodi paper that mentioned the status of the old case: http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_53167b87-feee-54e6-8e7f-e0b68aaa1fc5.html

"The Parachute Center also faces a $664,000 fine in a case filed last year. In that case, Dause allegedly failed to replace the parts on another DeHavilland Twin Otter airplane in 2008 and 2009.

Dause was given 30 days to respond to the allegations filed last year, but he was granted an extension so that he could have a private hearing with an FAA attorney, FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said several months ago. That case has not been resolved."

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)