ENFORCEMENT v. COMPLIANCE
Civil Penalty here
Allegations justify Action
The FAA has embarked on an effort to move from ENFORCEMENT to COMPLIANCE as the primary tool for assuring safety for a lot of good reasons. Though critics have failed to comprehend that the FAA is not eschewing civil penalties, there have been more than a few cases in which heavy fines have been levied.
There is a fairly good number of cases which trace this transition. Because reports of action do not explain why each set of facts merited a sanction, the public must try to discern how these matters define what will dealt with under compliance and what facts rise to the level of penalties.
The facts alleged (yet to be proved or admitted) provide some excellent guidance. Frontier placed on its aircraft emergency medical equipment that was deficient. Though it sought an exemption from the existing mandate, the company flew 11 airplanes on 787 operations without either injectable epinephrine, or atropine, or both. Having become aware of a serious violation, the company continued to fly.
Share this article: