Swa maintenance issues?

[Reebo]

I understand the "older airplane inspections" were mandated after the infamous Alaska Airlines accident when part of the cabin blew off and sucked out a flight attendant...

It was Aloha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

 

[jke406]

It was Aloha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

oh yeah.

Alaska had the faulty jack screw in the stab trim that caused their fatal crash.

so sorry.

 

[GuppyWN]

The whistle-blowers say FAA managers knew about the lapse in safety at Southwest, but decided to allow the airline to conduct the safety checks on a slower schedule because taking "aircraft out of service would have disrupted Southwest Airlines' flight schedule."

Isn't the point of oversight to find errors and improve future performace? The feds ALLOWED us to comply with the inspections on an amended timeline. Now we're being targeted for following the FAA guidelines?

Let the hearings take place. If we were caught with our hand in the cookie jar then they ought to spank us. We would deserve it. We missed the deadlines plain and simple and will surely pay a fine for it but if we inadvertantly missed this inspection and enhanced safety by improving future performance then I say the system worked.

Gup

 

[jke406]

Isn't the point of oversight to find errors and improve future performace? The feds ALLOWED us to comply with the inspections on an amended timeline. Now we're being targeted for following the FAA guidelines?

Let the hearings take place. If we were caught with our hand in the cookie jar then they ought to spank us. We would deserve it. We missed the deadlines plain and simple and will surely pay a fine for it but if we inadvertantly missed this inspection and enhanced safety by improving future performance then I say the system worked.

Gup

"inadvertant," my ass.

you clowns "pressed to test" in an effort to save money and game the system.

it's a dirty, yellow trick. Southwest has officially surrendered the moral high ground.

 

[densoo]

The real problem is the FAA mandate to police AND promote aviation. If the NTSB had enforcement powers stuff like this wouldn't happen. I wonder if the FAA personnel who apparently knew about this were former SWA employees.

The FAA overlooks a lot of stuff for expediency. Another FAA allowance that will make no sense to the public when there is an incident: CAL uses only FOs on all flights requiring one (or more) IROs. As a cost saving measure, they received approval from the FAA to allow FOs to act as captain of a flight if they are type rated. All FOs are type-rated so there are no more captain IROs. Other airlines may also have this. Imagine a 777 over the pole having a serious problem (dual engine failure?) while the sole captain on the flight takes his sleep break. Two FOs up front are legal because the FAA allows any type-rated FO to fly as PIC. While this may make sense to pilots, it won't make sense to a CNN. The interview will go something like this:

CNN: "Where was the captain?"

CAL: "He was in the back sleeping."

CNN: "You mean to tell me there was no captain flying the plane?"

CAL: "Two first officers acting as PIC were flying the plane."

CNN: "What's a PIC?"

CAL: "Pilot in Command. A first officer that the FAA has allowed to be in sole control of the plane is a PIC."

CNN: "So the first officer was also a captain?"

CAL: "No."

CNN: "Can this first officer can fly as a sole captain on, say, another flight later in the month."

CAL: "No."

CNN: "Why not?"

CAL: "They require six weeks of training to fly as a captain."

CNN: "Did any of the three first officers on this flight have six weeks of training as a captain?"

CAL: "No."

CNN: "If they require six weeks of training to fly as a captain, then how can they be flying as a captain now, without the six weeks of training? Are they captains or not?"

CAL: "They're not."

CNN: "How can the FAA allow you to fly a 17-hour flight with only one captain, who has to in the back for several hours for rest? What if there is a terrorist incident and the flight deck gets locked down so he can't come back up?"

CAL: "Not our problem. Ask the FAA."

 

[jke406]

That's great. Only, this thread is about SWA purposely violating FAA regulations...not about someone else following FAA regulations.

 

[Chewbacca]

yada yada...someone trying to dig up dirt on them.

wtf you smoking??

 

[StopNTSing]

Only four pages of piling on so far? C'mon guys, you can do better than that! :bomb:

We've now heard the lead-story, makes-great-copy above-the-fold headline version of this scoop--how about we wait for the rest of the story before being so hard on poor little SWA? I know, I know, it's so much more fun to just let your own agenda do the talking.

 

[Whataburger]

The recap how I see it.
We were told to do checks. Some accidentally got overlooked. 46 planes were re-checked. 6 were found to have extremely small cracks deemed too small to compromise safety. Boeing said it was okay to continue for 10 days. We disclosed to FAA. FAA did not ground the 6 planes for the 10 days. All was ok. FAA has reconsidered. I believe that we did this purposely is simply not true. These planes have greater than 98% MX dispatch reliability, rarely even have MELs, and corners don't need to be cut. My coolaid colored glasses might be foggy, but a sucessful airline in today's economy puts a bigger target on us than a heart shaped tatoo on the small of a chick's back.

 

[regionaltard]

Why all the haters?

I can't speak for the others, but I'm bitter because I'm not a Delta pilot and my frustration makes me lash out indiscriminately. Don't take it personally.

 

[captainv]

I'm not piling on, I was genuinely interested to see how the FAA would treat SWA. Not because I'm a hater, but to see if they would get hammered or get a slap on the wrist.

(My airline was fined $44,000 for flying a CRJ with a burned out no smoking light for four legs after a Fed mentioned it to the FA. the CA forgot to write it up. And we all know how deadly an inoperative no smoking light could be...)


CNN now says the FAA is seeking a $10.2 million fine, so there's my answer...

 

[jke406]

The recap how I see it.
We were told to do checks. Some accidentally got overlooked. 46 planes were re-checked. 6 were found to have extremely small cracks deemed too small to compromise safety. Boeing said it was okay to continue for 10 days. We disclosed to FAA. FAA did not ground the 6 planes for the 10 days. All was ok. FAA has reconsidered. I believe that we did this purposely is simply not true. These planes have greater than 98% MX dispatch reliability, rarely even have MELs, and corners don't need to be cut. My coolaid colored glasses might be foggy, but a sucessful airline in today's economy puts a bigger target on us than a heart shaped tatoo on the small of a chick's back.

"accidentally" overlooked? you believe that?

dude, you are smoking crack. a "target" on you? only because you guys take the moral high ground every chance you can.

oops.

You've always seemed to be a rational poster. My bad.

 

[IronCityBlue]

All the hooplah on this is clearly media BS trying to capitalize on the flying public's irrational fear of flying. SWA self disclosed, will pay a fine, learn from their mistake and not let it happen again. No pasengers were in serious peril because of this and anyone with a brain clearly knows that.

As for them getting preference from ATC, that is absolutely true. But like someone else mentioned, good for SWA. If there is ANY blame to go around for that, it rests with the FAA who owes every flight equal treatment, regardless of fruit baskets and plasms TV "thank you's" for mandatory services.

Yes SWA is always ready for takeoff, but that can't be the basis for system wide mass preference. ATC sincerely cares about SWA's operation on each and every flight. That can't last forever, and I predict it won't. But again, good for SWA for pulling it off, however they do it.

 

[canyonblue]

Ok all you third rate pilot wannabes, here is the Official word from Boeing about the inspections. It looks like the Clinton News Network jumped to conclusions again, along with the usual FI A-holes.

Boeing Statement on Southwest Inspections

“Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of their technical opinion that the continued operation of their Classic 737s, for up to ten 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 ten-day compliance plan was technically valid. In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised.”

Boeing Q&A on Southwest Inspections

Q: Did Southwest Airlines fly “unsafe” 737 airplanes?

A: 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 Southwest acted responsibly, and the safety of their fleet was not compromised.

Q: Does the FAA Airworthiness Directive 2004-18-6 have anything to do with the USAir, United Airlines or Aloha accidents mentioned in the CNN story?

A: The mandated inspection had absolutely nothing to do with the accidents mentioned in the CNN story. The AD was in response to a need to inspect, and if necessary repair, certain structural areas as part of the ongoing process to maintain an airworthy fleet.

Q: What is Boeing’s opinion of whether Southwest should have grounded their 737s until the inspections had been completed?

A: That would be a decision for Southwest to make. Boeing concluded their compliance plan was technically valid and maintained fleet safety.

Q: Were any of the skin cracks found by Southwest Airlines unsafe for the flying public?

A: All the analysis and abundance of test data developed by Boeing on the issue of skin cracking indicated that an immediate safety concern was not imminent. Southwest’s plan to complete the inspections and any necessary repairs ensured an acceptable level of safety.

 

[jke406]

Q: What is Boeing’s opinion of whether Southwest should have grounded their 737s until the inspections had been completed?

A: That would be a decision for Southwest to make. Boeing concluded their compliance plan was technically valid and maintained fleet safety.

Q: Were any of the skin cracks found by Southwest Airlines unsafe for the flying public?

A: All the analysis and abundance of test data developed by Boeing on the issue of skin cracking indicated that an immediate safety concern was not imminent. Southwest’s plan to complete the inspections and any necessary repairs ensured an acceptable level of safety.

That post is a farce and riddled with legalese. As if Boeing would ever admit their jets are "unsafe."

I'm beginning to see why the Air Force did not choose Boeing. They are a subsidized fat cat completely lacking in integrity.