Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southwest Grounds 128 737's over Missed Inspections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Southwest Grounds 128 737's over Missed Inspections

    Southwest is working out a deal with the FAA to allow them to continue flying 737-700's beyond the required inpection dates for "backup hydraulic systems".
    At the moment, they have grounded 128 aircraft and cancelled at least 90 flights. That amounts to about one fifth of their fleet.

    A Southwest Airlines spokeswomen has called the missed inspections "inadvertent" and assures us that safety is the airline's highest priority.

    Safety requires intention. If safety is your greatest priority then safety inspections are your greatest intention, yet these inspections were overlooked unintentionally which algebraically translates to a lack of intention to perform them. I'm sure safety is of great concern to Southwest but I question what their highest priority is.

    Which is why we have regulators, who seem to have failed us here (apparently Southwest reported the problem to them, not vice-versa) and who are willing to 'negotiate' a deal to allow flights to continue without a normally required level of redundancy over primary flight control.

    Perhaps the 'system' is on the MMEL list. It better be. I would be interested to know the details of the 'system' is question and what other contingency might be used in its place. Gambling with people's lives is not the role of the FAA.


  • #2
    I take it, this places Southwest on your no-fly list (assuming they were not thereon already, I don't remember)?

    Comment


    • #3
      As far as I can tell, the issue is a failure to inspect either the standby hydraulic system or the standby rudder PCU. In the event of a failure of the A and/or B hydraulic system, the standby system is required. Without the STBY RUD system available, QRH procedure for a loss of A and/or B systems is not possible. If neither the primary nor the backup PCU systems are operable, rudder control is not possible. I do not know if the primary PCU can be powered by either the A or B systems alone, without the STBY RUD system, but the FCOM does not indicate this. This makes me quite convinced that it is not an MMEL item.

      A failure to inspect a primary flight control backup system within the required timeframe is very serious infraction in my opinion and undermines Southwest's claim that safety is their 'top priority'. As for FAA oversight, that appears to be in a shambles.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
        I take it, this places Southwest on your no-fly list (assuming they were not thereon already, I don't remember)?
        My impression of Southwest is that they have an excellent pilot safety culture and these pilots have thus far been able to overcome the airline's shady maintenance culture. Since the majority of fatal accidents are the result of pilot error, this is the reason I would still fly with them (that and the obvious monopoly the have on certain routes). But I worry that sooner or later that shady maintenance culture is going to leave their pilots in a situation where even the most skilled piloting cannot save the day—a loss of primary flight control for instance. A frozen neutral rudder can be dealt with in most conditions but a rudder frozen at a large deflection is another story, as we have tragically witnessed on the 737. And if not this, than perhaps something else...

        I also believe Southwest has a fairly incestuous relationship with the FAA. Last year they were hit with a $12M fine for shady maintenance and managed to negotiate that down to a bit over $7M. What does that say about the FAA?

        Bottom line: I will fly with them but if Jet Blue has the same route for a bit more money I will definitely go with Jet Blue, especially in light of this continuing problem of compliance on the part of Southwest.

        Comment


        • #5
          "Shady maintenance culture". Strong and (I'd posit) ill-considered terminology on your part (even from the admittedly wet-behind-the-ears perspective of one who could be fairly described as a parlour-talker). Did SW urinate in your cornflakes in some manner?

          Arrow

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Southwest is working out a deal with the FAA to allow them to continue flying 737-700's beyond the required inpection dates for "backup hydraulic systems".
            At the moment, they have grounded 128 aircraft and cancelled at least 90 flights. That amounts to about one fifth of their fleet.

            A Southwest Airlines spokeswomen has called the missed inspections "inadvertent" and assures us that safety is the airline's highest priority.

            Safety requires intention. If safety is your greatest priority then safety inspections are your greatest intention, yet these inspections were overlooked unintentionally which algebraically translates to a lack of intention to perform them. I'm sure safety is of great concern to Southwest but I question what their highest priority is.

            Which is why we have regulators, who seem to have failed us here (apparently Southwest reported the problem to them, not vice-versa) and who are willing to 'negotiate' a deal to allow flights to continue without a normally required level of redundancy over primary flight control.

            Perhaps the 'system' is on the MMEL list. It better be. I would be interested to know the details of the 'system' is question and what other contingency might be used in its place. Gambling with people's lives is not the role of the FAA.

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/missed-i...ice-1424835614
            Evan,

            I don't know the safety culture at SW, but one can be really intended to do something right and still make a mistake, especially when that something is not one simple task but a complex, long term operation with thousands of tasks.

            When a maintenance plan is prepared, the person doing it might have accidentally skipped the line, or accidentally entered a different time interval, or the task itself may be correctly specified in the maint plan but the procedure might be missing some specific operation. While maintenance plans are controlled documents and as such revised before they are put in place and revised again by the FAA before it's approved, it's really hard to catch this kind of mistakes once they are done.

            Very well prepared people, very professional, with a high degree of skill and expertise in their field, and with the best intention to do things right, still make honest mistakes from time to time.

            Again, I don't know if this is the case of Southwest, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge (and condemn) them.

            The fact that they found the issue, grounded 128 planes, cancelled 90 flights and reported it to the FAA, is better than they finding it and working it out in the background without telling anybody and while keeping the operations normally.

            What I wonder is... how long can it take to perform this check on 128 planes? Unless there is a high degree of disassembly required, it should not be much.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #7
              They are certainly following the QRH for when there's a PR disaster.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                What I wonder is... how long can it take to perform this check on 128 planes? Unless there is a high degree of disassembly required, it should not be much.
                Five days. The FAA has allowed them to continue flying in violation of the inspection interval limit in the meantime.

                Here's is why I "condemn" Southwest from a maintenance point-of-view:



                It's not parlour talk, it's an FAA press release. Read it.

                As for your other comments Gabriel, the fact that Southwest self-reported the problem is probably tied to the $7M spanking they took for the above infractions. And I can't just write off the failure to inspect a critical backup system for primary flight control system on 128 aircraft to a bureaucratic oversight. This is culture.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This is the music video of Mr. Roboto by Styx. Kilroy!
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The problem's plain to see: too much technology
                    Machines to save our lives. Machines dehumanize.

                    The time has come at last
                    To throw away this mask
                    So everyone can see
                    My true identity...
                    I'm Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy!
                    Ha! Very relevant for many threads in this forum.
                    I wonder if Chris has something to do with it.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      My impression of Southwest is that they have an excellent pilot safety culture and these pilots have thus far been able to overcome the airline's shady maintenance culture.
                      When forming that impression, did the three approach accidents they had over a 14-year period (all of them pure pilot error) enter into the picture at all?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                        When forming that impression, did the three approach accidents they had over a 14-year period (all of them pure pilot error) enter into the picture at all?
                        Yes, I'm aware of their shortcomings but I'm also aware of the in-flight emergencies that have been handled very well by their airmen. None of them pulled up relentlessly or did something foolish with the automation. They all knew the type very well. They seemed well-versed on emergency procedure. I think when you fly for an airline that tends to skimp on fuselage repairs, you have to be ready for anything.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Yes, I'm aware of their shortcomings but I'm also aware of the in-flight emergencies that have been handled very well by their airmen. None of them pulled up relentlessly or did something foolish with the automation. They all knew the type very well. They seemed well-versed on emergency procedure. I think when you fly for an airline that tends to skimp on fuselage repairs, you have to be ready for anything.
                          Thanks for the chuckle.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X