The neglect of airline safety regulatory enforcement in Australia compared to the US is highlighted by the different treatment recently of safety failures in Jetstar and American Airlines.

Over a week has passed since the ATSB published its final report into Jetstar’s dangerously botched missed approach to a fog bound Melbourne airport by one of its A320s on July 21, 2007, with no action, so far, from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for non-compliance with the rules.

In contrast, its US counterpart, the FAA, has announced civil penalties equal to about $900,000 against American Airlines.

This is the FAA announcement:

FAA Proposes Civil Penalties Totaling $787,500 Against American Airlines

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is seeking to collect three proposed civil penalties totaling $787,500 from American Airlines for maintenance violations.

In the first case, which occurred in April 2008, the FAA alleges American Airlines mechanics diagnosed problems with one of two Central Air Data Computers (CADCs) on a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 jetliner. Instead of replacing the computer, mechanics improperly deferred this maintenance under the airline’s DC-9 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) by noting that the auto-throttles were inoperative. The MEL, however, does not allow deferral of an inoperative CADC.

The airline subsequently flew the plane on 10 passenger flights before the computer was replaced. During this time, flight crews were led to believe that both computers were working properly.

The FAA proposes a civil penalty of $625,000 in this case.

In the second case, the FAA found that in March 2008, American failed to correctly follow an Airworthiness Directive involving the inspection of rudder components on certain Boeing 757 aircraft. As a result, four 757s operated by American Airlines did not comply with the requirements of the Airworthiness Directive.

The FAA alleges that after American was advised of the situation, the company said it would cease flying the planes until they were repaired. However, during the following two days, the airline flew two of the planes on a total of three passenger flights. The FAA is seeking a penalty of $75,000 in this case.

In the final case, the FAA alleges that in May 2009, American’s mechanics returned an MD-82 aircraft to service, even though several steps of a scheduled B-check maintenance visit had not been checked off as completed. The airline also replaced a landing gear door without noting it in the aircraft’s logbook.

The aircraft was operated on two passenger flights with the logbook error. An FAA inspection of the aircraft revealed several discrepancies in the tail section, including loose screws, a missing nut plate and a right hand elevator torque tube binding and making noise. As a result of these discrepancies, the FAA proposes a civil penalty of $87,500.

In the case of the Jetstar incident, the ATSB found that the airline had changed the Airbus recommended procedures for a missed approach in a way that prevented the pilots from immediately recognising their error in placing the engine throttles in the wrong position for the procedure.

This resulted in prolonged confusion in the cockpit, including the jet continuing to descend when the pilots expected it to climb, falling to within 11.5 metres of the ground.

The ATSB found that Jetstar had failed to conduct a risk assessment of the procedural changes, and that it could not produce documentation related to the changes.

It also found that Jetstar, which was allowed to self-investigate the incident, did not discover until August 2 that the ground proximity warning system in the jet with 140 passengers on board had been activated, which requires it by law to file an immediate notification of that situation to CASA and the ATSB.

However Jetstar did not disclose what it knew about the true situation on the jet until forced to do so on September 11, after reports published in Crikey and Aviation Business.

Let’s run through this again. Jetstar changed its flight rules in a manner that was to imperil 140 passengers, it did no risk assessment, it kept no records it could share with the ATSB, and it failed to comply with the law on reporting serious incidents until forced to do so.

So where is the high level inquiry into Jetstar today? Where is the safety audit? Where are the prosecutions for such gratuitous failures to obey the law? How can anyone trust anything this airline says or does if it can’t even acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, which it responded to with PR lies about how the ATSB approved of its actions immediately after the incident?

Was it a cover up, or do we have to believe that Jetstar, then run by current Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, was in fact ignorant of such fundamental safety obligations?

The ATSB report spells out the regulatory breaches by Jetstar.

The gravity of the report, and its identification of a deficient, unresponsive and irresponsible safety culture in Jetstar at the time of the incident has been studiously ignored by the government, the opposition, and the PR and spin captured reporting of aviation safety by the mainstream media.

This article appeared in yesterday’s Crikey subscriber bulletin