Skip to main content

UNITED STATES ANNOUNCES SETTLEMENT WITH AIR JAMAICA

Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Carmine Gallo, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), Eastern Region, today announced the resolution of a federal civil action filed against Air Jamaica Limited, a foreign commercial air carrier that operates commercial passenger airline services within the United States pursuant to FAA authorization. The action arose out of Air Jamaica’s negligent maintenance of one of its aircraft, which resulted in an emergency landing of a commercial flight from John F. Kennedy International Airport in December 2001. As alleged by the United States in its complaint, following the emergency landing, Air Jamaica operated the aircraft with damaged parts, and in an unairworthy condition, on 58 commercial flights before it made the necessary repairs.

Under the terms of the resolution, Air Jamaica must undertake various measures to ensure improvement in its safety program. These measures include the continued implementation of a more rigorous method of tracking maintenance discrepancies, regular meetings with FAA officials, and improved internal auditing of maintenance matters. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York will retain jurisdiction to ensure Air Jamaica’s compliance with the enhanced safety program through injunctive relief and/or increased penalties. In addition, Air Jamaica is obligated to pay $180,000 in civil penalties.

“This settlement represents an innovative resolution that is designed to ensure compliance with the standards set by the FAA to protect the flying public,” stated United States Attorney Campbell. “This Office is committed to airline safety and, to that end, will vigorously enforce the laws that safeguard our skies.” Mr. Campbell extended his grateful appreciation to the FAA for its assistance in investigating and resolving the case.

The government’s case was litigated by Assistant United States Attorney Laura D. Mantell.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more