Southwest Taking Some Heat

[scottkin]

I see some pretty hefty fines out of this one. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/southwest.planes/index.html

[Leftseat86]

That is an absolute disgrace. I hope they catch more than just "some heat", because that is very serious.

[3WE]

As someone said a while back, SWA does not profit JUST from fuel hedging, they are much too smart for that and would simply find other ways to make money if their fuel became expensive. :twisted:

[Foxtrot]

Pretty surprising (even in today's world) that this would be part of the goings-on at an airline like WN. Well now that the cat's out of the bag, WN will be facing the heat up in D.C. ... way to go WN.

[ATrude777]

Before anyone starts rumors are start bashing lets make some things clear first.

SWA has not actually been notified or received any such FAA notifications of these things.

"The media is suggesting that the FAA plans to fine Southwest regarding aircraft inspections, but to date, we have not received any notification or indication from the FAA that that is what they plan to do.

The inspections for early signs of skin cracking on some of our aircraft in question were one of many routine, redundant, and overlapping inspections of our fleet and involved an extremely small area in one of the many overlapping inspections. When we discovered a missed inspection, we informed the FAA and promptly completed the missed inspections in March 2007. The FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007."

So lets wait until the FAA actually notifies SWA about any such things and whatnot.

Alex

[Leftseat86]

Before anyone starts rumors are start bashing lets make some things clear first.

SWA has not actually been notified or received any such FAA notifications of these things.

"The media is suggesting that the FAA plans to fine Southwest regarding aircraft inspections, but to date, we have not received any notification or indication from the FAA that that is what they plan to do.

The inspections for early signs of skin cracking on some of our aircraft in question were one of many routine, redundant, and overlapping inspections of our fleet and involved an extremely small area in one of the many overlapping inspections. When we discovered a missed inspection, we informed the FAA and promptly completed the missed inspections in March 2007. The FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007."

So lets wait until the FAA actually notifies SWA about any such things and whatnot.

Alex

You seem to be talking about:


According to the inspector's statement in congressional documents: "Southwest Airlines at the time of discovery did not take immediate, corrective action as required to address this unsafe condition and continued to fly the affected aircraft with paying passengers."

The documents show Southwest Airlines voluntarily disclosed some of the missed inspections last spring, and Southwest Airlines told the Wall Street Journal it did not expect any civil penalties to be imposed because of the self-disclosure.

But, even after the airline's disclosure, FAA inspectors assert that planes continued to fly, in some cases for more than a week, before inspections were complete. The airline "did not take immediate, corrective action," according to the congressional documents obtained by CNN.

[Foxtrot]

Before anyone starts rumors are start bashing lets make some things clear first.

SWA has not actually been notified or received any such FAA notifications of these things.

"The media is suggesting that the FAA plans to fine Southwest regarding aircraft inspections, but to date, we have not received any notification or indication from the FAA that that is what they plan to do.

The inspections for early signs of skin cracking on some of our aircraft in question were one of many routine, redundant, and overlapping inspections of our fleet and involved an extremely small area in one of the many overlapping inspections. When we discovered a missed inspection, we informed the FAA and promptly completed the missed inspections in March 2007. The FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007."

So lets wait until the FAA actually notifies SWA about any such things and whatnot.

Alex

You have a point there but WN is known for its safety standards, so thought this was surprising nonetheless. Now if CNN is making a mountain out of molehill (which it is expert at doing-as is any news channel) that will fall on CNN's heads.

Seems though that the FAA will be scrutinized as well, although the FAA has had many lapses itself before.

[ATrude777]

You seem to be talking about:


I am not talking of...

Southwest Rep has stated this and is publicly released by SWA, also at a.net as well.

Alex

[FlyingPhotog]

As someone said a while back, SWA does not profit JUST from fuel hedging, they are much too smart for that and would simply find other ways to make money if their fuel became expensive. :twisted:

You are implying that WN knowingly cut corners to save money? That's complete BS. If anything it was an internal oversight.

[sjwk]

Have the planes in question been found to have actually been unsafe, or was it purely that they hadn't been inspected? The wording of the article sounds a bit scaremongery to me - although of course they should have been inspected, not having been doesn't make them deathtraps about to fall from the skies.

I guess if there had been an incident, the FAA would have been equally culpable for not having noticed, or for ignoring, the lack of inspections. It's not as though they don't know where the planes are, or which planes are actually flying.

Steve.

[Leftseat86]

You are implying that WN knowingly cut corners to save money? That's complete BS. If anything it was an internal oversight.


Taking the airplanes out of service for inspections = lost money

[Vincentomoh]

If other parties (like the FAA) that the issue is not that significant and Southwest sues and wins for slander against CNN, then it won't be good for CNN.

On the other hand if CNN is proven to be correct in its tone then it's not good for Southwest.

Someone is going to lose.

However if I was the SWA administration and there was a significant safety issue I would be showering the whistleblowers with gifts. SWA does not need an Alaska 261-like incident.

[alanh]

The main concern seems to be with a potential Aloha 243. WN has some high-cycles 733s, so they're required to inspect for cracks.

[FlyingPhotog]

Taking the airplanes out of service for inspections = lost money

Possibly, but on any given day Southwest has "spares" that are not scheduled to fly that day. Those aircraft could be used to fill in for the scheduled maintenance.

[flyboy2548m]

Possibly, but on any given day Southwest has "spares" that are not scheduled to fly that day.

How many and where?

[FlyingPhotog]

How many and where?

Most of the inspections are done over the weekend, when the schedule is reduced. I believe on most weekdays there's 5-8 spares. I see a couple parked around DAL most days on hard stands. There's probably a couple at PHX and MDW, the other locations for heavy maintenance.

[screaming_emu]

slightly off topic, but while we're talking about spares. I've heard that Fedex at one point in time ( and maybe now still ) has airplanes that are actually in there air that are spares. If something breaks, they just continue on to that destination and pick up the cargo.

[FlyingPhotog]

slightly off topic, but while we're talking about spares. I've heard that Fedex at one point in time ( and maybe now still ) has airplanes that are actually in there air that are spares. If something breaks, they just continue on to that destination and pick up the cargo.

Wow I had never heard that, it is certainly interesting. And with their time-sensitive service, I would not be surprised if it were true. It reminds me of the Cold War B-52 patrols.

[AA 1818]

Now with these allegations made, I want to see (if possible) what WN finds during their round of investigations. From the release, it sounds as if the FAA was looking for a scape-goat. I think that both were to blame, and have to wonder why the FAA did not do more (like take other forms of action to stop these aircraft from flying), and why did they allow things to go publically? Why not deal with the company personally and avoid using CNN? There is just no good way that this will resolve itself.

[cegro27]

Wow I had never heard that, it is certainly interesting. And with their time-sensitive service, I would not be surprised if it were true. It reminds me of the Cold War B-52 patrols.

During a trip to flight ops at UPS, they told us something similar. They would fly two spare DC-8s, one circling near the west coast and another near the east coast ready to pick up cargo from any disabled a/c that couldn't make it's scheduled run.

[DAL767-400ER]

During a trip to flight ops at UPS, they told us something similar. They would fly two spare DC-8s, one circling near the west coast and another near the east coast ready to pick up cargo from any disabled a/c that couldn't make it's scheduled run.
Wow, UPS and FedEx must be running a great "Secret Service" of their own with those flights, seeing as how no treehugger group has yet b!tched about them ;) .

[HalcyonDays]

During a trip to flight ops at UPS, they told us something similar. They would fly two spare DC-8s, one circling near the west coast and another near the east coast ready to pick up cargo from any disabled a/c that couldn't make it's scheduled run.

Did you believe what you were told ?

[FlyingPhotog]

Here's a statement issued by Boeing regarding this safety issue.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080306f_nr.html

Boeing Statement on Southwest Airlines 737 Inspection Activity

SEATTLE, March 06, 2008 -- Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of its technical opinion that the continued operation of SWA's Classic 737s, for up to 10 days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue. Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded the 10-day compliance plan was technically valid. In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised.

[FlyingPhotog]

A Statement from Southwest Airlines: www.blogsouthwest.com

By: Paula Berg - Southwest Airlines

Friends - Many of you are writing to us concerned about today’s news reports regarding the safety and inspections of Southwest Airlines’ aircraft.

Let me assure you, first and foremost, that no one is more passionate about the safety of our Customers and Employees than we are, and it is important for you all to know that the situation being reported in the media was never and is not now a safety of flight issue.

The FAA has issued what is called a “letter of penalty” to Southwest Airlines regarding one of many routine, redundant, and overlapping inspections of our fleet. The specific inspection in question involves an extremely small area in one of many overlapping inspections designed to detect early signs of skin cracking on our aircraft.

In March 2007, Southwest Airlines discovered a missed inspection area, disclosed the information to the FAA, and promptly reinspected all of our potentially affected aircraft.

The FAA approved our actions at that time and considered the matter closed as of April 2007.

The Boeing Company, which manufactures all of our aircraft, also supported our aggressive compliance plan, and has issued a statement confirming that we acted responsibly and, more importantly, that the safety of our fleet was not compromised.

The FAA has concerns about the inspection process, which we are willing and eager to work with them to resolve. Receipt of the FAA’s letter of penalty gives us the opportunity to present both our case and the facts, which we feel will support our actions taken back in March 2007.

We assure you that this issue never compromised the safety of our fleet. Southwest has an excellent maintenance program, with more Boeing 737 aircraft experience than any carrier in the world. Safety is, has always been, and will always will be our number one priority.

[DaveGF4G]

just hope that YOUR 737 has "winglets" AND can dump fuel

[FlyingPhotog]

just hope that YOUR 737 has "winglets" AND can dump fuel

737s can't dump fuel. :roll: What's your point?

[DaveGF4G]

I'm just messing with ya

[cegro27]

Did you believe what you were told ?

I didn't have any reason not to. Honestly, I didn't care, they were giving me time in their flight sims...they could've told me that the pilots were giving joy rides at 2 in the morning and I would've cared one bit. But it makes sense, they've got to have "some" way of moving freight when an a/c goes down, and aircraft fly around empty all of the time....flight training, repositioning, ferrying...so why not as a spare. I believe they referred to them as "hot spares", or something like that.

Anyway, as someone who has had the unusual experience of flying on Southwest while a "maintenance issue" unfolded (as in a big chunk of the wing skin unfolding during cruise), I believe situations like this at least bring everything to light, no matter who's at fault, and it will give other airlines a chance to take care of any possible "missed inspections" of their a/c before the media starts to shed light on them as well.

[scottkin]

Unfortunately, today the FAA announced Southwest was being fined 10.2 million dollars.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-06-fine_N.htm

[flyboy2548m]

So lets wait until the FAA actually notifies SWA about any such things and whatnot.



Now that they have, what's your argument, WN is being unfairly singled out?

[FlyingPhotog]

Unfortunately, today the FAA announced Southwest was being fined 10.2 million dollars.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-06-fine_N.htm

:shock: Daaaaaaaaammn!

[Retired]

$10.2 M works out to be about 0.1% of revenue and 1.5% of net income.

[DaveGF4G]

Southwest will announce a rate hike next week

[Vinco]

During a trip to flight ops at UPS, they told us something similar. They would fly two spare DC-8s, one circling near the west coast and another near the east coast ready to pick up cargo from any disabled a/c that couldn't make it's scheduled run.It's a purely financial decision. Cost of lost revenue due to cargo not being delivered on time is much greater than having an extra a/c adn crew avialable. Friend of mine is a UPS 757/767 Captain and there are nights where he'd fly empty half way to California then divert to Texas and then divert back to SDF all without landing.

[AndyToop]

...
The agency transferred an FAA supervisor who had been overseeing Southwest to another job and has "taken appropriate action" against an unnamed (FAA)employee, spokeswoman Laura Brown said.

The fine comes as the FAA faces a whistle-blower investigation into whether the agency has become too cozy with the airlines it oversees.

The allegations stem from an FAA program that encourages airlines to disclose safety problems without fear of being punished.

Linda Goodrich, vice president of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the union that represents FAA inspectors, said many union members have come forward to complain that the agency abuses the program.

"The agency has allowed (airlines) to use this system to get around enforcement actions," Goodrich said.

Airlines have been allowed to "disclose" safety problems and escape fines even though inspectors initially discovered the problems, Goodrich said. FAA documents prohibit that practice.

The FAA's Brown said she did not know enough about Goodrich's allegations to comment.

While I'm not defending SouthWest in any was, anyone think the record fine may be more about internal politics at the FAA than safety factors at SouthWest. Once the headlines have died down, I think the amount that they will actually have to pay will be significantly less, otherwise the FAA will have to go through a prolonged legal action where their own failings are laid bare accross the tabloids.

[FlyingPhotog]

^ Andy, I agree. Just a few days before the Southwest news, a story broke about the FAA missing like 150 inspectors' badges. It seems the FAA has all sorts of crap going on, from this to the "new airport radar system" that's been on the shelf for like 10 years...?

I think the FAA just wants the limelight to shine on someone else, so they re-hashed this news about Southwest when the event happened a YEAR AGO! :ROLL:

[ATrude777]

While indeed if true, the airline flew these cracks, BUT was found to be approved and ok and did NOT fly these "unsafe planes", can SWA sue for slandor or misleading the public for flying unsafe airlines?

Either to the FAA or WSJ (the paper who published the first findings)?

Alex

[Dmmoore]

In legal terms Southwest was in violation of FAR's. Of that point there is no doubt.

By definition, any aircraft that does not comply with the FAR's is un-airworthy and therefore unsafe.

In real terms, the action was not unsafe. But SW is doomed from the legal point of view.

If it turns out that this was a decision made by upper management, the management members involved could face criminal charges.

If it was an accidental occurrence, the FAA's self disclosure policy should apply. No harm, no fowl, no penalty.

[flyboy2548m]

While indeed if true, the airline flew these cracks, BUT was found to be approved and ok and did NOT fly these "unsafe planes", can SWA sue for slandor or misleading the public for flying unsafe airlines?

Either to the FAA or WSJ (the paper who published the first findings)?

Alex

If WN does something bad, but Alex doesn't hear it, is it still wrong?

[3WE]

You really can't sue the government (or it's dang hard), and odds are that the media was repording what an appropriate source had said, so you don't have much of a case that they were acting irresponsible or on a witch-hunt to burn SWA/WN.

And, the Wall-Street Journal ain't the National Enquirer- they probably had good confirmation on their story and sought comments "from both sides".

That doesn't mean they are 200% accurate, but they probably followed the rule book and have a sound story.....Just like every airline flight is not 200% perfect, but the pilots stick to procedure and the flight is completed safely.

[ATrude777]

In legal terms Southwest was in violation of FAR's. Of that point there is no doubt.

By definition, any aircraft that does not comply with the FAR's is un-airworthy and therefore unsafe.

In real terms, the action was not unsafe. But SW is doomed from the legal point of view.

If it turns out that this was a decision made by upper management, the management members involved could face criminal charges.

If it was an accidental occurrence, the FAA's self disclosure policy should apply. No harm, no fowl, no penalty.

Right, not denying the FAR regulations, but as said certainly misleading to the public of stating we flew unsafe planes, when we certainly did not (unless proven otherwise).

It is almost the same idea of, missing an oil check. Is the car going to go off the road immediatly? Absolutely not, same thinking with the cracks, they would lead to potential unsafe incidents, but at the time they were not unsafe and the flying public was not put at risk.

That is what I was wondering if SWA could sue, slandor of misleading the public stating they were unsafe, cause we very well know FAA "unsafe" is not Public's eye of "unsafe"

How would the FAA policy be "ok" for the public, would it voice in lay mans term to the public "SWA did not fly unsafe planes and the public was not put at harm at any given moment" as the perception is perceived as?

Alex

[flyboy2548m]

That is what I was wondering if SWA could sue, slandor of misleading the public stating they were unsafe, cause we very well know FAA "unsafe" is not Public's eye of "unsafe"



You're not regulated by the public.

[AndyToop]

While indeed if true, the airline flew these cracks, BUT was found to be approved and ok and did NOT fly these "unsafe planes", can SWA sue for slandor or misleading the public for flying unsafe airlines?

Either to the FAA or WSJ (the paper who published the first findings)?

Alex I doubt anyone will be sued for slander, the facts are that the planes missed safety checks, this was discovered and the planes kept on flying without being checked. Did this remove a safety layer from the equation - yes. Anything that says they compromised or reduced safety margins to sustain income/reduce cost would be pretty hard to dispute.

[3WE]

You're not regulated by the public.Oh come on flyboy it's just a nit-picky safety inspection, there's so much redundancy in planes today, what does it matter if you are late for an inspection, seems perfectly safe to me.

To hell with the regulations, Alex says WN is safe. That's good enough for this WN customer and member of the general public.

[Dmmoore]

While indeed if true, the airline flew these cracks, BUT was found to be approved and ok and did NOT fly these "unsafe planes", can SWA sue for slandor or misleading the public for flying unsafe airlines?

Either to the FAA or WSJ (the paper who published the first findings)?

Alex

Alex,
Read your own words carefully. You can not approve a past action. You can defend by saying the cracks were found to be approvable. In this case that would be saying "Ignorance is bliss, we didn't know the cracks were there because we didn't look" as they were required to do. Also very few unrepaired cracks can be approved.

The FAA maintenance inspector involved was doing Southwest a favor by allowing them to continue to operate the aircraft in violation of an AD, after the missing inspections were discovered. Southwest screwed him by not accomplishing the inspections during the one year extension granted under his (the FAA maintenance inspectors) own discretion. His discretion does not include AD's.

The FAA has allowed maintenance inspectors to grant minor deviations to FAR's but an AD is a big deal. The only way you can amend the compliance time or method is by applying for and receiving an AMOC which is then an approved procedure.

In my opinion, the FAA should throw the book at Southwest for gross stupidity. That stupidity is; failure to accomplish the inspections they overlooked under the terms of an agreement with a regulatory representative.

[FlyingPhotog]

But SW is doomed from the legal point of view.

The same was said about Southwest in 1971 when they had to fight to fly from DAL.

If it turns out that this was a decision made by upper management, the management members involved could face criminal charges.

If it was an accidental occurrence, the FAA's self disclosure policy should apply. No harm, no fowl, no penalty.

Agreed.

[flyboy2548m]

To hell with the regulations, Alex says WN is safe. That's good enough for this WN customer and member of the general public.

Is Alex in WN's safety department?

[FlyingPhotog]

I doubt anyone will be sued for slander, the facts are that the planes missed safety checks, this was discovered and the planes kept on flying without being checked.

But in the meantime, WN did get Boeing's approval to continue operating the aircraft outside of their inspection window. I still haven't seen any proof that WN ever said "f*ck it, we're not inspecting them right now."

[AndyToop]

If it turns out that this was a decision made by upper management, the management members involved could face criminal charges.

If it was an accidental occurrence, the FAA's self disclosure policy should apply. No harm, no fowl, no penalty.

Yes, but what about if it was an accidental occurance which was discovered by an FAA inspector, but then an arangement made by someone within the FAA acting beyond their remit to allow the management of SWA to use the self disclosure policy so as to avoid any potential penalty and then to further compound the situation by acting even further beyond their remit in okaying a policy that kept the planes in the air while they were not "officially" airworthy.

[Dmmoore]

But in the meantime, WN did get Boeing's approval to continue operating the aircraft outside of their inspection window. I still haven't seen any proof that WN ever said "f*ck it, we're not inspecting them right now."

That's wonderful!

Oh oh, Boeing can not approve a time extension for an AD. Only the FAA can issue an AMOC (Alternate Means Of Compliance).

Boeing's approval is required before the FAA would consider issuing an AMOC.

Did WN ground the affected aircraft immediately after finding the overflight? If they didn't they effectively spoke your last sentence.

[FlyingPhotog]

That's wonderful!

Oh oh, Boeing can not approve a time extension for an AD. Only the FAA can issue an AMOC (Alternate Means Of Compliance).

Boeing's approval is required before the FAA would consider issuing an AMOC.

Did WN ground the affected aircraft immediately after finding the overflight? If they didn't they effectively spoke your last sentence.

Okay Boeing didn't "approve" the continued flying, exactly. What they said was that they saw no danger in the operation of the aircraft. Even the FAA has said that, but they're going with "Rules are rules..."

[AndyToop]

But in the meantime, WN did get Boeing's approval to continue operating the aircraft outside of their inspection window. I still haven't seen any proof that WN ever said "f*ck it, we're not inspecting them right now."

No. They got Boeing to agree that their own analysis of the risk was technically acurate. They may even have got their FAA supervisor to say it was OK as well. They might not have said "F*ck it were not doing it now" but they did say "lets push to keep these planes flying while we check them" but still an attitude that shows erring on the side of profit rather than erring on the side of safety irrespective of the marketing material.

[AndyToop]

Okay Boeing didn't "approve" the continued flying, exactly. What they said was that they saw no danger in the operation of the aircraft. Even the FAA has said that, but they're going with "Rules are rules..."

Totally agree.
Look, SWA should have been fined for this, not for the original oversight, but for continuing to fly the planes once it had been identified. I was shocked at the magnitude of the fine, until I saw the internal stuff going on with the FAA. Right now they need to distance themselves as far as possilbe from any colusion in anything remotely suspicious of being a safety issue. And like I said, over time I suspect the actual amount will be much less, but there wont be a lot of headlines about it. For a couple of weeks, the FAA will be allowed to says "rules is rules". SWA will be allowed to say "we thought we were playing by the rules, we do you know honest guv" and Boeing will sit quietly occasionally saying "we dont make the rules and our planes are really safe" and trying not to upset either the biggest client or their regulator. The media frenzy will die down, people will keep flying SWA, the news will move back to to the amusing safety announcements and the fine will be quietly reduced.

[ATrude777]

Dmmore- You're right my wording wasn't very clear. I do see you're understanding what I am getting at.

While FAA insists WN flew unsafely, it leads ideas to the public that unsafe=planes will crash any given moment, and the flying public should bar away from the airline, which we as aviation people know is not the case. That is again what I was questioning, if it does deem, that WN never actually flew unsafe planes in terms of, they were to crash if WN had a chance of getting recouped, but this is not the case, and my question was answered.


3WE--
To hell with the regulations, Alex says WN is safe. That's good enough for this WN customer and member of the general public.

Not sure what you're getting at...Yes, I am saying WN is safe, being backed up by the mgmt at the airline, as well as a flying public, I just flew them ironically the day this came out. I still happily boarded the plane knowing I was just fine.

Alex

[Dmmoore]

Dmmore- You're right my wording wasn't very clear. I do see you're understanding what I am getting at.

While FAA insists WN flew unsafely, it leads ideas to the public that unsafe=planes will crash any given moment, and the flying public should bar away from the airline, which we as aviation people know is not the case. That is again what I was questioning, if it does deem, that WN never actually flew unsafe planes in terms of, they were to crash if WN had a chance of getting recouped, but this is not the case, and my question was answered.


3WE--
To hell with the regulations, Alex says WN is safe. That's good enough for this WN customer and member of the general public.

Not sure what you're getting at...Yes, I am saying WN is safe, being backed up by the mgmt at the airline, as well as a flying public, I just flew them ironically the day this came out. I still happily boarded the plane knowing I was just fine.

Alex

Here's the issue.
SWA not only over flew an AD required inspection, the entered into an agreement to extend the due date for the inspection by one year and then violated the extension.

The FAA allows airlines to "SELF DICLOSURE" violations and report them with out accessing a fine "PROVIDED" the airline used due diligence in controlling the violations in the future. You can not say "OOP'S!" on the same subject more than once without a very good explanation.

Again, by definition this was an unsafe act on Southwest's part. On the surface it looks like Southwest was relying on the FAA's self disclosure rule to delay accomplishment of the required inspection indefinitely.

If I were in Southwest's management, I'd ask the FAA to do a detailed inspection of SWA's total operation. This assumes that Southwest has nothing to hide. The result of such an inspection (assuming no major findings) will confirm Southwests position the airline is safe and reassure the FAA that the omission was an oversight and not an overt act.

On the other hand, "IF" someone in Southwest's maintenance management system has been playing games with the system, the airline will know and the people responsible will find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed however they will be supported with public funds while they look at the world through bars.

"IF" someone has been playing with the maintenance system in such a way as too circumvent required inspections, it is a criminal act. Southwest must assure the FAA, their investors and the general public that they are observing all safety regulations.

I once heard a quote from a maintenance planner. Supposedly this comment was made to an FAA inspector; "We only do the important AD's." As All AD's are important and must be complied with using an approved method, the comment is pure B.S.

[FlyingPhotog]

Further action taken by WN:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200803111608DOWJONESDJONLINE000793_FORTUNE5.htm

Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV) placed three employees on administrative leave after releasing preliminary findings from its internal investigation into allegations the company violated Federal Aviation Administration regulations in March 2007.

The Dallas carrier said it launched an investigation last month immediately after learning of an FAA probe regarding the company's compliance with FAA Airworthiness Directives. Southwest "accelerated" its internal probe after the FAA released details of its letter of civil penalty.

:(

[Vnav]

Today's Press Release from Southwest:



Southwest Airlines Responds to Preliminary Findings of its Internal InvestigationDALLAS, March 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) CEO Gary Kelly said today the airline is taking action on preliminary findings of its own internal investigation into allegations that it violated FAA regulations in March 2007.
Kelly has vowed to make any changes necessary to assure that the airline is in full compliance with FAA Airworthiness Directives and all of its own maintenance programs, policies, and procedures.
"Upon learning last month of an investigation with respect to our handling of this inspection and an Airworthiness Directive, I immediately ordered an independent and comprehensive investigation by outside counsel," Kelly said.
Last week, we accelerated the internal investigation after Southwest received details from the FAA's letter of civil penalty. On March 10, Kelly was given preliminary findings from the internal investigation.
"I am concerned with some of our findings as to our controls over procedures within our maintenance airworthiness directive and regulatory compliance processes," Kelly said. "I have insisted that we have the appropriate maintenance organizational and governance structure in place to ensure that the right decisions are being made."
Based on those findings, Southwest has: -- Placed three Employees on administrative leave. Those Employees are cooperating with the investigation. -- Hired a respected outside consultant with proven experience to help review its maintenance program controls, especially Airworthiness Directive (AD) compliance. -- Fully engaged with the FAA on its current audit of Southwest and committed to FAA leadership that it will investigate and address any deficiencies in its maintenance controls."These are important and necessary steps," Kelly said. "At the same time, we are mindful that during Southwest's 37-year proud history, we have safely transported the population of the United States -- every man, woman, and child -- four and a half times over. This is a fact. We have been a safe Company. I believe we are a safe Company. I am committed to making sure we become safer still."
SOURCE Southwest Airlines



This doesn't sound like the Press Release of a company that hasn't done anything wrong. This sounds like a Company in full "Cover your Ass" mode.

[Leftseat86]

I still happily boarded the plane knowing I was just fine.

Alex


Did you really?

[ATrude777]

Did you really?

Yes.

Whenever I have to go to meetings or interviews in Dallas for SWA, I have no qualms about getting on board their aircraft or any airlines aircraft. Will continue to fly them.

Alex

[AA 1818]

As I said before, I was awaiting an official report before commenting, and this confirmed my fears. I have not always been a fan of WN (something that has been evidenced many times), but for some reason it seemed so unfair to blame just WN. Why did the FAA not take a stronger role, in reporting to the DOT and/or grounding planes? Why did they not deal with this professionally, and not have whistleblowers come out with this info in this manner? Why did it have to become a scandal? Why did all involved have to tarnish the safety record, not only of this airline, but of the industry as a whole? Either way - I agree with these findings. Heads need to roll at both WN and at the FAA, but to a great degree at the FAA. Yes, WN was partly guilty, but it is the duty of the FAA to make sure that events such as these do not occur.

WASHINGTON – Officials for Southwest Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration "falsified the report" that said the airline had come into compliance with rules for crucial safety inspections for jets, according to records released by a U.S. House committee.

That allegation appears in more than 90 pages of documents that suggest a culture of cronyism compromised the FAA's oversight of Southwest Airlines in Dallas. Two whistle-blowers said FAA supervisors and colleagues undermined their efforts to get Southwest to comply with federal directives.

The FAA has fined Southwest $10.2 million for continuing to fly more than three dozen jets that were 30 months late for safety inspections and should have been grounded until the work was done. But the agency hasn't fired any employees over the incident, which has embarrassed the FAA and called into question its partnership approach to regulating airlines.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters suggested Monday that more disciplinary actions could be handed down.

"If any inspector failed in his or her responsibilities to the traveling public, they will be dealt with swiftly and severely," Ms. Peters told a conference in Washington. "There is simply no margin for error when it comes to the safety of our aviation system."

A Southwest spokeswoman said the carrier hasn't reviewed the specifics of the whistle-blower complaints and couldn't comment on the allegations.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/031108dnbussouthwest.3b2e20a.html?npc

[AA 1818]

Oh come on flyboy it's just a nit-picky safety inspection, there's so much redundancy in planes today, what does it matter if you are late for an inspection, seems perfectly safe to me.

To hell with the regulations, Alex says WN is safe. That's good enough for this WN customer and member of the general public.


Although you have already taken flak for that statement, let me add, that your source, while wise in many respects, is not a public official, neither is he a member of the FAA or the DOT. While many of us here may fine both institutions to be outdated at time, or cumbersome, or bothersome, or redundant, let me remind you that for decades they have prevented BILLIONs of deaths by protecting us, the flying public, from the most one of the most dangerous aspects of this industry - inconsistency. One man's standards of safety are not necessarily another, and with that in mind, what may be safe to you, may just be "cute" to me, and vice versa. By having strict safety standards, and by standardizing the industry, the FAA and the DOT have made the industry safer. If other operators were allowed to operate according to their own standards, then who would be right? Yes, WN has the support of Boeing, but still, not the support of the governing body of the industry. The moral responsability was to take the aircraft out of service. Then the legal responsability matured next, to which they did not comply. BUT - here is where mitigating circumstances come into play - at this point the FAA was to oversee that the legal obligation was met. They turned a blind eye, and so now, they bear a part of the legal burden. Who is worng? WN? Yes. But blame is never 100%. Had WN operated in direct opposition to the FAA things would have been different. BUT the FAA (or at least corrupt members within the FAA) were working in cohorts. SO, is the FAA culpable? Yes. Both are to blame!

And now it raises the question - if the FAA was working well with WN? What about other airlines? Were the doing the same with other airlines as well? Are there more fiascos to come?

[Crism]

You're worse than I am!

[ATrude777]

Although you have already taken flak for that statement, let me add, that your source, while wise in many respects, is not a public official, neither is he a member of the FAA or the DOT.

I really, really think he was joking, being sarcastic. :shakehea:

Alex

[Dmmoore]

<SNIP>The moral responsability was to take the aircraft out of service. Then the legal responsability matured next, to which they did not comply. BUT - here is where mitigating circumstances come into play - at this point the FAA was to oversee that the legal obligation was met. They turned a blind eye, and so now, they bear a part of the legal burden. Who is worng? WN? Yes. But blame is never 100%. Had WN operated in direct opposition to the FAA things would have been different. BUT the FAA (or at least corrupt members within the FAA) were working in cohorts. SO, is the FAA culpable? Yes. Both are to blame!The FAA did not turn a blind eye but instead agreed to allow WN to continue operating the aircraft for a period of time allowing WN to conduct the required inspections. WN blew the deal sky high.
And now it raises the question - if the FAA was working well with WN? What about other airlines? Were the doing the same with other airlines as well? Are there more fiascos to come?
Fiasco's? No. But I have worked within the FAA's system for 43 years without a single problem. No that does not mean their were no differences of opinion or discussions regarding findings. But the FAA never demanded that an aircraft be grounded when it was found out of compliance. "WE" grounded it as soon as we found the problem. "WE" called the FAA and they came running.
The FAA does not have the resources to police the industry. They provide oversight which allows the industry to police its self. individuals at It appears a few misguided SN just threw a monkey wrench into a well oiled machine.
If this goes where I think it goes, someone needs to go to jail. If this is as flagrant as I think it is, someone(s) needs to go to jail for a long time. The industry moved beyond the "What Can We Get Away With" mode in the 70's.

[3WE]

I really, really think he was joking, being sarcastic. :shakehea:

AlexYou sure? ;-)

Hey, keep up the good public relations work. I DO hear you that the saftey issues were more technical than genuine.

Nevertheless, hurling thousands of passengers through the sky, 5 miles high at 500 MPH, in thin aluminum tubes requires airlines to be prety anal-retentive about following the inspection rules, so it appears there may be some wrists to be slapped here.

[Dmmoore]

<SNIP> so it appears there may be some wrists to be slapped here.

There will be more than wrist slapping, trust me.

[Vinco]

There will be more than wrist slapping, trust me.
There will certianly be more than wrist slapping on corporate level, but I doubt any individual or even a group will be held responsible. The responsibility for continuing compliance of an airline lies with too many people.

There way a similar failure to comply with an AD where I worked. It did not result in a/c grounding as an compliance extension was provided by FAA. No one was fired. No one was suspended. Everybody got a speech about importance of ADs.

[Purdue_AAE]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Southwest Airlines Co said on Wednesday that it has taken 41 planes out of service, but declined to comment on the reason.

Southwest said on Tuesday that it suspended three employees in response to U.S. government allegations that it knowingly allowed planes to fly that had not been properly inspected for potential structural flaws.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last week proposed a record $10.2 million in connection with allegedly failing inspections.

The FAA said the grounding was due to a safety issue but would not elaborate.

The allegations that Southwest, one of the biggest U.S. airlines in terms of passengers carried, may have cut corners represents a startling mark against a carrier that has been an industry model for efficient operation for nearly 40 years.

Southwest shares fell 4 percent to $11.90 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, as oil marked a new record high.

(Reporting by Chris Reiter; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz, Richard Chang)

[HalcyonDays]

If this is as flagrant as I think it is, someone(s) needs to go to jail for a long time. The industry moved beyond the "What Can We Get Away With" mode in the 70's.

But the issue is whether we have moved back to that mode, in that the financial and operating pressures under which the airline industry operates may have pushed individuals to compromise standards in a culture of intense competition and profit pressure, and that managements may be complicit in such a culture.

As I write, this seems to be escalating, as the news is talking of 41 aircraft being grounded. This is doing Southwest's hitherto stellar reputation no good at all.

[Dmmoore]

There will certianly be more than wrist slapping on corporate level, but I doubt any individual or even a group will be held responsible. The responsibility for continuing compliance of an airline lies with too many people.

There way a similar failure to comply with an AD where I worked. It did not result in a/c grounding as an compliance extension was provided by FAA. No one was fired. No one was suspended. Everybody got a speech about importance of ADs.

I would totally agree "IF" this weren't an overfly of the extension! Southwest is way past the speech giving stage, That event should have occurred last spring.

As I understand the issues, 41 aircraft made 60,000 flights without receiving the required inspections. 60,000 flights times the maximum fine of $10,000 per occurrence is $600,000,000. I'd slap that one on them and let them stew for a few weeks. I'd then file criminal charges against all management members responsible for maintenance planning and QA. Let them stew on that!

A self enforcement program is worthless without some teeth to ensure those charged with enforcing the policy accomplish the task. Southwest (and the rest of the industry) needs to clearly understand the program, how, why and what if.

An accidental overfly is one thing but this one looks deliberate, planned and officially sanctioned. Unless they can prove a clerk made a simple mistake or a computer program glitched, if they can prove that, I'd drop the charges on all but those reporting the original overfly, They KNEW.

Sorry Southwest employees but your company has committed an inexcusable event. Should the airline be shut down? No! But management needs a BIG wake up call as to their responsibilities.

[Leftseat86]

Yes.

Whenever I have to go to meetings or interviews in Dallas for SWA, I have no qualms about getting on board their aircraft or any airlines aircraft. Will continue to fly them.

Alex



I just find it funny, because I would never say that about any aircraft. Theres no possible way you can know that everything on a given aircraft is in working order and something won't go wrong. You can diminish the risk, but the risk is always there in flying.

[ATrude777]

I just find it funny, because I would never say that about any aircraft. Theres no possible way you can know that everything on a given aircraft is in working order and something won't go wrong. You can diminish the risk, but the risk is always there in flying.

What is funny about it? You have to have faith the airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority, not just SWA but every airline.

Do you have the time before boarding a flight say on US Airways to ask for the MX sheet to claim the aircraft is in good working order? I don't, and just have to put faith they are doing the best.

Alex

[Highkeas]

[QUOTE=Purdue_AAE]........................Southwest said on Tuesday that it suspended three employees in response to U.S. government allegations that it knowingly allowed planes to fly that had not been properly inspected for potential structural flaws.......................................
[QUOTE]

An employee can do tremendous damage to a company; a few years ago I when I worked for a major US aerospace company - one employee disregarded the rules and cost the company hundreds of milions of dollars in government fines, lawsuites, and lost business (in this case the employee was not only fired but was subjected to criminal charges).

[ATrude777]

Just adding this along , though seems no one cares anyway.


Southwest Airlines Continues Its Internal Investigation and Audit

Airline Makes the Decision to Temporarily Remove 38 Aircraft from Scheduled

DALLAS, March 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Yesterday, Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) CEO Gary Kelly said the airline is taking action on preliminary findings of its own internal investigation into allegations that it violated FAA regulations in March 2007. Kelly vowed to make any changes necessary to ensure that the airline is in full compliance with FAA Airworthiness Directives and all of its own maintenance programs, policies, and procedures.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=92562&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=1118083&highlight=

Alex

[Leftseat86]

What is funny about it? You have to have faith the airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority, not just SWA but every airline.

Do you have the time before boarding a flight say on US Airways to ask for the MX sheet to claim the aircraft is in good working order? I don't, and just have to put faith they are doing the best.

Alex


Exactly, but I don't discount the possibility that it may not be the case. I think its good to be constantly reminded of the risk involved, and not get a false sense of security. It doesn't matter how awesome the safety record, how rigourous the inspections, etc...when i board an airplane I go hoping that everything will work, but I don't have any illusions that the shit can and will sometimes hit the fan. Frankly, while safety is important to most airlines, the industry as a whole has to find a balance between being overzealous and keeping risks reasonable. We could always be doing more, but we maintain a balance between the risks and practicallity. I always have faith in an aircraft I board, but it isn't blind.

[Vinco]

What is funny about it? You have to have faith the airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority, not just SWA but every airline.

Do you have the time before boarding a flight say on US Airways to ask for the MX sheet to claim the aircraft is in good working order? I don't, and just have to put faith they are doing the best.

AlexSo, you have faith in the fact that "airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority" because you don't have time to ask for "MX sheet"?!? Kind of like saying I have faith that my employees don't steal from me bacause I don't have time check the books. Btw, what is "MX sheet"?

[3WE]

Frankly, while safety is important to most airlines, the industry as a whole has to find a balance between being overzealous and keeping risks reasonable. We could always be doing more, but we maintain a balance between the risks and practicallity.

That comment is:

Great
Accurate

And it sucks from the PR standpoint....blancing $$ for money huh...how evil of WN and every other airline out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Regulations are written in blood!!!!!!!!! How many people must die!!!!!!!!!!

(Ok, I'm being sarcastic and embellishing the point about PR-spin and the ability of the flying public to accept that there is a tiny additional risk that they bear due to the need for safety to be reasonable and economical) And, yes, I genuinely agree that this issue is of no practical significance and agree that I'm much safer once I've parked the car, rode the shuttle bus and THEN boarded the plane!

But, "reasonable" is "the word" and sadly, the general public can't deal with it as well as they should.

At AD.com we had a running joke: Ban all airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That would certainly guarantee that there would never again be a tragic plane crash (with or without a flight plan).

But that's not "Reasonable" and your comment is right on!

And a sad comment to Alex:

There is no question your WN colleagues bust their butts to run a safe, friendly and low cost airline. But low cost means living on the edge, minimizing costs, minimizing waste.

It doesn't matter whether it was a conspiracy or an accident, it isn't a surprise that the relentless quest for cost cutting and efficiency resulted in some overlooked safety duties.

It has happened before with other airlines, and isn't really a new phenomenon.

[ATrude777]

So, you have faith in the fact that "airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority" because you don't have time to ask for "MX sheet"?!? Kind of like saying I have faith that my employees don't steal from me bacause I don't have time check the books. Btw, what is "MX sheet"?


Yes, I do have faith, You have to. Until you are proven otherwise, you have to assume the safe factor.

As leftseat pointed out, it doesn't minimize the risk, but the risk is still there.

MX=Maintenance.

I am saying every time we board a plane, we are hoping and putting faith the airline has checked the aircraft out and has approved it for safe flying. We don't have time to scrutinize the Pilot, the Flight Attendant and the Mechanics to check the sheet (why I said MX sheet) to see if it is safe for flying.

Alex

[Vinco]

I'd then file criminal charges against all management members responsible for maintenance planning and QA. Let them stew on that!

An accidental overfly is one thing but this one looks deliberate, planned and officially sanctioned. Unless they can prove a clerk made a simple mistake or a computer program glitched, if they can prove that, I'd drop the charges on all but those reporting the original overfly, They KNEW.

Sorry Southwest employees but your company has committed an inexcusable event. Should the airline be shut down? No! But management needs a BIG wake up call as to their responsibilities.I don't know what the process is at Southwest but it's most likely up to one engineer to make assesment of the applicability, compliance time frame and method. If the AD affects the fleet, the engineer will write an Engineering Order (or whatever the documents name is at SW) specifiying what a/c are affected, what the work scope is, where AD will be accomplished etc. There is most likely a log of all the AD's and their affect on SW's fleet, extension, times frames and all sorts of other information somewhere in SW technical library.

In this case, due to unknown circumstances SW received an extension. With or without the engineers knowledge. AD log may have been altered with a wrong compliance date. Engineer responsible for this particular ATA transfered/quit/retired. The new guy has his own priorities and verifying that his predecessor didn't make a mistake isn't one of them. And it lingers until someone discovers it. SW has no chioce but to fess up to it and take it.

Don, I just don't think it was deliberate.

[Uncle Jay]

Id be much more worried about those Parker-Hannefin rudder control valves than cracks. The airlines were given much to much time to correct that one.

[Vinco]

Yes, I do have faith, You have to. Until you are proven otherwise, you have to assume the safe factor.

As leftseat pointed out, it doesn't minimize the risk, but the risk is still there.

MX=Maintenance.

I am saying every time we board a plane, we are hoping and putting faith the airline has checked the aircraft out and has approved it for safe flying. We don't have time to scrutinize the Pilot, the Flight Attendant and the Mechanics to check the sheet (why I said MX sheet) to see if it is safe for flying.

AlexI realize that MX stands for maintennance but what information is on MX sheet?

I think it's a wording issue. I wouldn't say I have faith in anything aircraft related. I simply accept the fact that there are certain, assumed risks. That there are programs in place and agencies (FAA) at work that minimize the risk of anything adverse happening to me. I also assume that most pilots aren't drones and odds of having two of them together on my flight are fairly low. And I accept that.

[Leftseat86]

43 airplanes grounded

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-southwest13mar13,0,4231178.story

[bball87]

Well,
It's good news to hear Southwest grounded 43 planes so they could be inspected for those cracks. I'm still a bit dissapointed with Southwest, that it took this billion dollar fine for them to inspect their fleet the way they should at all times. My trust in them is somewhat lost and now I'm a little uneasy, considering I booked a returning flight from Denver with them in May.

[Dmmoore]

I don't know what the process is at Southwest but it's most likely up to one engineer to make assesment of the applicability, compliance time frame and method. If the AD affects the fleet, the engineer will write an Engineering Order (or whatever the documents name is at SW) specifiying what a/c are affected, what the work scope is, where AD will be accomplished etc. There is most likely a log of all the AD's and their affect on SW's fleet, extension, times frames and all sorts of other information somewhere in SW technical library.

In this case, due to unknown circumstances SW received an extension. With or without the engineers knowledge. AD log may have been altered with a wrong compliance date. Engineer responsible for this particular ATA transfered/quit/retired. The new guy has his own priorities and verifying that his predecessor didn't make a mistake isn't one of them. And it lingers until someone discovers it. SW has no chioce but to fess up to it and take it.

Don, I just don't think it was deliberate.

I know how the process works. I've been directly involved in the process for the last 25 years.

SW discovered the overfly last spring. With or without the engineers knowledge (without would be unlikely) the extension was granted and SW took no action to acccomplish the inspections.

For the original discovery to be made, more than one person was involved. For the FAA to agree to an extension, more than on member of SW's maintenance staff was involved.

The process involved at a minimum, engineering, QA, QC and production / maintenance control. Senior management had to be aware if not directly involved.

I hope it wasn't deliberate! I don't see how it could have been an accident, for the second time.

[cegro27]

News is reporting that all of the grounded planes have now been properly inspected and are back in service.

[flyboy2548m]

News is reporting that all of the grounded planes have now been properly inspected and are back in service.

43 airplanes overnight. Way to go Southwest!

[FlyingPhotog]

43 airplanes overnight. Way to go Southwest!

Well its wasn't really overnight. The aircraft were pulled offline yesterday during scheduled revenue service time, resulting in the cancellation of roughly 4% of Southwest's flights for the day. The crews and dispatchers did an amazing job with the logistics of it. There were hundreds of aircraft swaps throughout the system.

[Leftseat86]

I heard a few of the airplanes were already in hangars undergoing other maintenance anyway.

[flyboy2548m]

I heard a few of the airplanes were already in hangars undergoing other maintenance anyway.

What an amazing coincidence.

[Leftseat86]

What an amazing coincidence.


I wasn't presenting it as such. Just sayin'

[FlyingPhotog]

I heard a few of the airplanes were already in hangars undergoing other maintenance anyway.

That is correct.

The Dallas-based airline had grounded the 38 airplanes to inspect portions of their fuselages for cracks. Another five aircraft already undergoing maintenance were also being inspected, as was a jet that is being retired from Southwest’s fleet.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031408dnbussouthwestschedule.4e6efdb4.html

[FireLight]

This is likely to earn Southwest a bunch of new friends, at least with the other airlines. :smilewin:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694562/

DALLAS - The Federal Aviation Administration, under fire for its handling of missed safety inspections at Southwest Airlines Co., said Tuesday it is ordering a check of maintenance records at all U.S. airlines.

The FAA’s action applies to records on all planes. FAA inspectors will check to make sure the airlines have complied with orders to perform the type of structural inspections that Southwest missed on some older Boeing 737s.

The FAA hit Southwest this month with a $10.2 million civil penalty for missing the inspections and then continuing to fly the planes with passengers on board even after realizing the mistake. Dallas-based Southwest plans to appeal.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. You'd have to hope that the other guys have their houses in order and it will be a case of "nothing to see here, move along, move along." :skeptic:

[FlyingPhotog]

^ Southwest shouldn't have anything to do with it. The FAA ought to be inspecting airlines' records on a regular basis anyway. The FAA is now trying to minimize the damage by not keeping their records in order, so they now mount this massive front in the name of Public Relations.

[FireLight]

^ Southwest shouldn't have anything to do with it. The FAA ought to be inspecting airlines' records on a regular basis anyway. The FAA is now trying to minimize the damage by not keeping their records in order, so they now mount this massive front in the name of Public Relations.

Ironically, it doesn't seem to be hurting Southwest's public relations. They don't seem to have much of a taken a hit in popularity.

Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23526154/

As far as actual risk is concerned, some facts to consider.

Inspections required every 4,500 flights per plane.
Missed inspections for about 60,000 total flights.
Southwest has 515 planes in the fleet. (source: http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/factsheet.html )
Average age of airframe: 9 years
Average # of flights above inspection requirement: 116 (could be 0 for some airframes and much more for others.)
Average percentage airframes went over inspection frequency: 2.5%

Aloha Airways flights: 89,090
Age of airframe: 19 years

Therefore, the risk of a failure due to cracking on any of these 737 airframes seems likely to be quite small. However, the precedent shouldn't be that the airlines set their own frequency of inspections to suit their needs, as laxity in the inspection process could mean missed problems or cumulative errors, resulting in a greater risk of failure as the fuselage starts to near it's design fatigue lifespan.

[ptbodale]

Well its wasn't really overnight. The aircraft were pulled offline yesterday during scheduled revenue service time, resulting in the cancellation of roughly 4% of Southwest's flights for the day. The crews and dispatchers did an amazing job with the logistics of it. There were hundreds of aircraft swaps throughout the system.
Your Dispatchers make Commercial decisions? In Canada Dispatchers make operational decisions, Operations Control Managers make the commercial decisions. They are separate by the Canadian Air Regulations.

[FlyingPhotog]

Your Dispatchers make Commercial decisions? In Canada Dispatchers make operational decisions, Operations Control Managers make the commercial decisions. They are separate by the Canadian Air Regulations.

The dispatchers are in charge of re-routing the aircraft in the event of irregular operations - which is certainly what WN encountered on this day of massive inspections.

[ptbodale]

The dispatchers are in charge of re-routing the aircraft in the event of irregular operations - which is certainly what WN encountered on this day of massive inspections.
Interesting. As I mentioned, in Canada that is the job of the Operations Control Managers, a non-union position. We handle all irregular operations, maintenance, weather or otherwise.

[tommyalf]

I hate to break it to all the WN fans and employees who have been posting that WN did nothing wrong... I deal with regulatory affairs in my company and you don't get a 10 million dollar fine just out of the blue with no warning. The regulatory world is very complex and the Gov't can levy fines for a number of reasons. Chances are the line level workers at WN have no idea of the details of the fines for good reason. WN doesn't want them discussing it which could put them at further risk.

The fact is WN didn't follow some gov't outlined procedure and now has to pay for that error. I'm sure it was not intentional on WN's part to defraud the Gov't but in today's regulatory world procedures must be followed to letter or the fines can be dramatic.

[FireLight]

I wouldn't want to argue that Southwest did nothing wrong, but I think there is a difference between doing something wrong in a regulatory sense, and of significantly increasing the risk to the pax flying in the airplanes.

One gets you a healthy fine, the other puts peoples lives in jeopardy.

[Leftseat86]

I wouldn't want to argue that Southwest did nothing wrong, but I think there is a difference between doing something wrong in a regulatory sense, and of significantly increasing the risk to the pax flying in the airplanes.

One gets you a healthy fine, the other puts peoples lives in jeopardy.


When we're talking about regulations put in place due to specific accidents, targeting very specific problems, I think you're walking a fine line to say safety wasn't compromised...

[alanh]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/southwest.faa.inspection/index.html
(CNN) -- Southwest Airlines tried to keep serious problems with its maintenance program hidden and pressured the Federal Aviation Administration to keep out an inspector who noticed the problems, according to two FAA inspectors who blew the whistle on the airline.

Bobby Boutris and Douglas Peters told CNN Wednesday they brought information about Southwest's lack of compliance with mandatory inspection protocols to their supervisors, but the FAA did nothing.
....
The inspectors wrote that Southwest, which carried more passengers in the United States last year than any other airline, flew at least 70 planes without a mandatory inspection on the rudder unit, part of the steering mechanism, some of them as much as 30 months beyond the mandatory rudder inspection.

The airline also flew at least 47 planes beyond a mandatory inspection of the fuselage, or skin, of the planes for possible cracks, the inspectors said. When the inspections were carried out, six of the planes were found to have possibly dangerous cracks, they said.

[FireLight]

When we're talking about regulations put in place due to specific accidents, targeting very specific problems, I think you're walking a fine line to say safety wasn't compromised...

I agree about the fine line. As far as the issue of inspecting the fuselage for cracking, the risk was probably only increased marginally. However, the bigger issue is having a culture where greater risks are taken on an ongoing basis. They go from missing the frequency by a few percent, to a few tens of percent, to 100 percent or more. All their past experience tells them that it was safe enough the last time - ie., no aircraft experienced any significant trouble when we let the maintenance slip a little, or when we let it slip a little more, until they cross a threshold, but at that point it's too late.

Examples:
1. Alaska Air
2. Space Shuttle

[Dmmoore]

Right on FireLight.

When we can show the FAA the inspection interval is too short to find detectable cracks, they extend the inspection interval. However in the case of the Boeing fuselage which has been in continuous production for more than 50 years, the fatigue cycle is well known. A la Aloha 243.

Aloha had been doing the inspections at night using poor lighting, flash lights (torches for those educated in the British school system). They missed the cracks because they didn't know what they were looking for.

Here is a link to a PDF file detailing the issues.

http://www.system-safety.com/PPT%20Files/Aloha%20Airlines%20Flight%20243%20V2%20PPT.pdf

[FlyingPhotog]

Aloha had been doing the inspections at night using poor lighting, flash lights (torches for those educated in the British school system). They missed the cracks because they didn't know what they were looking for.

That's incredible, flashlights! I know there's an electronic device that can actually measure sheet-metal's thickness and integrity. It basically provides an x-ray of the skin. I hope these are used currently but I am not sure how the inspections are conducted.

[FireLight]

Don - thanks for the link. :)

Right on FireLight.

When we can show the FAA the inspection interval is too short to find detectable cracks, they extend the inspection interval. However in the case of the Boeing fuselage which has been in continuous production for more than 50 years, the fatigue cycle is well known. A la Aloha 243.

Aloha had been doing the inspections at night using poor lighting, flash lights (torches for those educated in the British school system). They missed the cracks because they didn't know what they were looking for.

Here is a link to a PDF file detailing the issues.

http://www.system-safety.com/PPT%20Files/Aloha%20Airlines%20Flight%20243%20V2%20PPT.pdf

It's good to know that things have improved considerably since then. Although there still seems some way to go based on the Southwest approach.

That's incredible, flashlights! I know there's an electronic device that can actually measure sheet-metal's thickness and integrity. It basically provides an x-ray of the skin. I hope these are used currently but I am not sure how the inspections are conducted.