FAA proposes $380,600 penalty against aircraft repair company

SEATTLE, WA – The US Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration proposes a $380,600 civil penalty against Leading Edge Aviation Services of Victorville, Calif., for allegedly v

<

SEATTLE, WA – The US Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration proposes a $380,600 civil penalty against Leading Edge Aviation Services of Victorville, Calif., for allegedly violating federal drug and alcohol testing regulations.

The FAA alleges the aircraft repair station hired 29 people for safety-sensitive positions but did not include them in the company’s random drug and alcohol testing pools either for months after they were hired or during their entire periods of employment.

Additionally, the FAA alleges the company failed to ask 18 safety-sensitive employees -whether they had tested positive or refused to take a DOT pre employment drug or alcohol test at other companies they had applied to for safety sensitive transportation work during the previous two years.

The FAA further alleges Leading Edge hired six people for safety-sensitive positions before it received verified negative pre-employment drug tests for them. One of the six employees performed safety-sensitive work although Leading Edge never received a verified negative pre-employment drug test for him, the agency alleges.

Finally, the FAA alleges the company used DOT forms to document non-DOT drug tests for three employees and used a non-DOT form to document urine collection for another employee.

Leading Edge has been in communication with the FAA about the case.

WHAT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS ARTICLE:

  • Additionally, the FAA alleges the company failed to ask 18 safety-sensitive employees -whether they had tested positive or refused to take a DOT pre employment drug or alcohol test at other companies they had applied to for safety sensitive transportation work during the previous two years.
  • The FAA alleges the aircraft repair station hired 29 people for safety-sensitive positions but did not include them in the company's random drug and alcohol testing pools either for months after they were hired or during their entire periods of employment.
  • Finally, the FAA alleges the company used DOT forms to document non-DOT drug tests for three employees and used a non-DOT form to document urine collection for another employee.

About the author

Avatar of Linda Hohnholz

Linda Hohnholz

Editor in chief for eTurboNews based in the eTN HQ.

Share to...