Eighth Circuit Upholds FAA Civil Penalty Enforcement Action Against Airline over Inoperable Landing Gear Despite Airline’s Voluntary Reporting

The Eighth Circuit upheld an FAA enforcement action against a Missouri-based airline company for violation of an airworthiness directive.  In November 2007, the airline’s mechanics replaced a brake assembly on the main landing gear of an airplane.  During the replacement, the mechanics installed gear pins to lock the assembly in place while they completed the repair.  However, the mechanics neglected to update the logbook entry, and one of the gear pins was left in the airplane during the next flight.  Consequently, the landing gear would not retract.  Soon after take-off, the pilots received a warning about the faulty landing gear and immediately returned to the departure airport.  The airline reported the problem to the FAA.

Per the FAA’s Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (“VDRP”), when an air carrier voluntarily discloses a regulatory violation and satisfies additional compliance requirements, the FAA will issue a “letter of correction in lieu of civil penalty action.”  As part of these requirements, the air carrier must submit a “comprehensive fix” proposal to the FAA.  Although the FAA accepted the airline’s application for the VDRP, it rejected the airline’s proposed fix.  The airline missed its deadline to rework its proposal, triggering an FAA enforcement action.

The FAA argued that the airline had violated the airworthiness regulations when it failed to make the logbook entry and remove the pin.  The ALJ agreed, finding that the airline had flown the plane without conforming to the list of rules that each plane must follow before taking flight.  Despite the airline’s arguments that no one had been in danger and, therefore, that the plane was airworthy, the Eighth Circuit upheld the ALJ decision.  The court concluded that the “the type-certificate nonconformity in this case – inoperable landing gear – was so clearly related to safe operation of the airplane that a finding the airplane was not airworthy was clearly warranted based solely on this nonconformity . . . .”  Further, it found that the airline knowingly failed to abide by the VDRP and, therefore, that the agency was within its authority to issue the enforcement action.