Cracks found at SWA

[Tanker Clown]

I believe that, on the outside, the focus appears to be not entirely focused on safety. It will be interesting to see if that apparent culture is a contributing factor in these missed inspections.

Here's a major gripe of mine regarding KOAK - maybe a Southwest guy can explain this.

Rwy 29 is 10,000' with water at or near both ends of the runway. Each of the past 4 times I've been in OAK, various Southwest aircraft request intersection "U" for departure in order to get out ahead of other aircraft. Why would you voluntarily give away 3000' of good runway to save a minute or two.

Using intersection "U" -

Is it safe? Probably

Is it legal? Probably

If you had a high speed abort and went off the end, where do you think the scrutiny or the media and the feds would fall - especially considering you voluntarily shortened the pavement by 30% to save time???

If the minimum wasn't the minimum, it wouldn't be the minimum. Perhaps SWA should only fly out of KEDW since they have around 16K of runway. Maybe they should only go to AMA and it's 14K or so. I gotta be honest...your argument is pretty dumb. Why did the airfield designers even create a U intersection?

I'm sure they have the stopping margin for the intersection take off.

 

[fiel12]

The opposite of love is not hate, It's indifference.

You won't see me on a NWA, FDX, UPS ect. thread bashing them.

That's because I'm happy, not bitter. And I wish the best for everyone.

So for those of you who say you've never wanted anything to do with SWA, why are you even here? Bashing...

Yes, I know it's already been said.

 

[PositiveRate]

If the minimum wasn't the minimum, it wouldn't be the minimum. Perhaps SWA should only fly out of KEDW since they have around 16K of runway. Maybe they should only go to AMA and it's 14K or so. I gotta be honest...your argument is pretty dumb. Why did the airfield designers even create a U intersection?

I'm sure they have the stopping margin for the intersection take off.

I couldn't disagree with you more - you've entirely missed the point of my questions. I'm not saying it's not safe - I believe in most instances it would be well within performance limits - however, it is an opperational decision that I believe voluntarily reduces safety margins to save time.

This is but one example of a perceived culture over there and it will be interesting to see if that 'corner cutting' mentality is part of why these inspections were missed.

 

[Whataburger]

- Smug, self-righteous SWA kool-aid drinker, completely devoid of objectivity and willing to sacrifice their integrity for their cult (waveflyer, whataburger, etc)

.

Kood-aid drinker - guilty as charged.

Devoid of objectivity - At times, sue me.

Remind me how I have sacrificed my integrity. You dont know an f-ing thing about me or who I am. Indeed this portion of your rant plays perfect with your post but is baseless. I personally did not see any cracks in the 737s I flew during the time period in question. I flew some 300s whose skin looked like a topography map, but I personally did not overlook a crack. In addition, maintenance did not contact me about this paperwork oversight. You are full of sh!t, and I would be more than happy to discuss this with you in a private message.

Do tell us the ground work in which you live your life by. Even Jesus might be jealous in the holy than thou, perfect way in which you conduct your life, and in the manner in which you interact with individuals in a personal and professional manner.

You've done an outstanding job at point the finger. Keep in mind when you point your finger, there's three fingers pointing back at you.

 

[737 Pylt]

Kood-aid drinker - guilty as charged.

Devoid of objectivity - At times, sue me.

Remind me how I have sacrificed my integrity. You dont know an f-ing thing about me or who I am. Indeed this portion of your rant plays perfect with your post but is baseless. I personally did not see any cracks in the 737s I flew during the time period in question. I flew some 300s whose skin looked like a topography map, but I personally did not overlook a crack. In addition, maintenance did not contact me about this paperwork oversight. You are full of sh!t, and I would be more than happy to discuss this with you in a private message.

Do tell us the ground work in which you live your life by. Even Jesus might be jealous in the holy than thou, perfect way in which you conduct your life, and in the manner in which you interact with individuals in a personal and professional manner.

You've done an outstanding job at point the finger. Keep in mind when you point your finger, there's three fingers pointing back at you.

Don't even waste your time responding to this little kid. Its some 350 lb zit faced lard ass teen sitting behind a computer. I don't even want to ask what his keyboard and mouse look like from the "other web surfing he does........

737

 

[jke406]

Kood-aid drinker - guilty as charged.

Devoid of objectivity - At times, sue me.

Remind me how I have sacrificed my integrity. You dont know an f-ing thing about me or who I am. Indeed this portion of your rant plays perfect with your post but is baseless. I personally did not see any cracks in the 737s I flew during the time period in question. I flew some 300s whose skin looked like a topography map, but I personally did not overlook a crack. In addition, maintenance did not contact me about this paperwork oversight. You are full of sh!t, and I would be more than happy to discuss this with you in a private message.

You've been posting up and down this forum about how there was no way SWA could have possibly done anything wrong, how this would turn out to be nothing, why is everybody picking on us, boo hoo.

Your passengers' safety was compromised. Period.

Yet you continued to bury your head in the sand after the fact emerged that SWA skipped the inspections and, in fact, was flying unsafe aircraft. You even went so far as to try to convince others that all was wall. THAT is what I was referring to.

 

[Donald]

I believe that, on the outside, the focus appears to be not entirely focused on safety. It will be interesting to see if that apparent culture is a contributing factor in these missed inspections.

Here's a major gripe of mine regarding KOAK - maybe a Southwest guy can explain this.

Rwy 29 is 10,000' with water at or near both ends of the runway. Each of the past 4 times I've been in OAK, various Southwest aircraft request intersection "U" for departure in order to get out ahead of other aircraft. Why would you voluntarily give away 3000' of good runway to save a minute or two.

Using intersection "U" -

Is it safe? Probably

Is it legal? Probably

If you had a high speed abort and went off the end, where do you think the scrutiny or the media and the feds would fall - especially considering you voluntarily shortened the pavement by 30% to save time???

PositiveRate, the only time I have used U intersection at OAK was to meet an EDCT. You're right, I don't like giving up 3000 ft if I don't have to. However, If we don't have an acceptable stopping margin from U intersection we don't do it, we get in line an accept a later EDCT.

 

[Whataburger]

You've been posting up and down this forum about how there was no way SWA could have possibly done anything wrong, how this would turn out to be nothing, why is everybody picking on us, boo hoo.

Your passengers' safety was compromised. Period.

Yet you continued to bury your head in the sand after the fact emerged that SWA skipped the inspections and, in fact, was flying unsafe aircraft. You even went so far as to try to convince others that all was wall. THAT is what I was referring to.

Says the person with "Weed is what you need" as their tag.

 

[Whataburger]

Don't even waste your time responding to this little kid. Its some 350 lb zit faced lard ass teen sitting behind a computer. I don't even want to ask what his keyboard and mouse look like from the "other web surfing he does........

737

ok, done.

 

[Skyboy722]

I believe that, on the outside, the focus appears to be not entirely focused on safety. It will be interesting to see if that apparent culture is a contributing factor in these missed inspections.

Here's a major gripe of mine regarding KOAK - maybe a Southwest guy can explain this.

Rwy 29 is 10,000' with water at or near both ends of the runway. Each of the past 4 times I've been in OAK, various Southwest aircraft request intersection "U" for departure in order to get out ahead of other aircraft. Why would you voluntarily give away 3000' of good runway to save a minute or two.

Using intersection "U" -

Is it safe? Probably

Is it legal? Probably

If you had a high speed abort and went off the end, where do you think the scrutiny or the media and the feds would fall - especially considering you voluntarily shortened the pavement by 30% to save time???

Give me a break. Based on your argument I can assume that you ALWAYS depart from the LONGEST available runway at any given airport? Doubt it. So you've NEVER landed on 25L at PHX? You are, after all, VOLUNTARILY giving up 3600' of runway by not landing on 26. You're either legal or you're not. Your argument would turn every airport into a single runway operation.

 

[PositiveRate]

Hey - read my post before you jump all over me SkyBoy.

We're talking about waiting in line for 4 or 5 others to depart full length or leaving immediately off an intersection that is 3000' down the runway. Pilot requested - not ATC. I've seen it in LAS as well with A3 and A4 departures from 25L simply to avoid the line. It's not a direct questioning of safety per se as I don't believe they would request it if the numbers weren't good...I see it more as a reflection of what I perceive to be a cultural 'go getter' mentality that could easily put pilots in a situation that would be highly criticized (regardless of legality) if God forbid something were to happen and that extra runway would have made a difference.

The reason I posted this is not to bash Southwest...it's because this mx inspection debacle has renewed an ongoing curiousity of mine of just how far into the company this perceived 'go getter' (read corner cutting) mentality extends.

 

[Bavarian Chef]

Hey - read my post before you jump all over me SkyBoy.

We're talking about waiting in line for 4 or 5 others to depart full length or leaving immediately off an intersection that is 3000' down the runway. Pilot requested - not ATC. I've seen it in LAS as well with A3 and A4 departures from 25L simply to avoid the line. It's not a direct questioning of safety per se as I don't believe they would request it if the numbers weren't good...I see it more as a reflection of what I perceive to be a cultural 'go getter' mentality that could easily put pilots in a situation that would be highly criticized (regardless of legality) if God forbid something were to happen and that extra runway would have made a difference.

The reason I posted this is not to bash Southwest...it's because this mx inspection debacle has renewed an ongoing curiousity of mine of just how far into the company this perceived 'go getter' (read corner cutting) mentality extends.

I ain't a "hater", but I agree that the perception you speak of is there.

Could being paid for segment miles and not block hours have anything to do with it? Or on a 6 leg day do you just want to get it over with as fast as f-in possible? I know I would.

 

[Babylon]

There is definitely a difference here between SWA and the other airlines - some good, some bad but there's no question that they sacrifice some safety for efficiency.

Look I fly the 737-700 for the Reserves and we have 6 SWA guys in my squadron. They are all aircraft commanders. When they fly the plane with the Navy they fly like everyone else - take the whole runway, taxi no faster than 20 kts, etc and our rules don't say anything any intersection takeoffs. There's a mentality at SWA that is different and I suspect that if a lot of pilots were flying the same exact aircraft at a different place with different pay rules, they would fly it differently.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Babylon,
There are definately those old heads that still do things, well lets say "a little different". Most of the guys that I fly with now days are really trying to do things by the book. The mentality is changing around here, but it takes a while to turn the ship around (both in operation and perception). There will always be those that push the envelope in every operation. I would question your "safety for efficency" comment. SWA does not compromise safety for efficency. Just because someone does something a little different, does not mean that they are compromising safety. (Current MX baffoonery excluded!!)

 

[PositiveRate]

The mentality is changing around here, but it takes a while to turn the ship around (both in operation and perception).

That jives with what I see and hear from people over there - the new gaurd is slowly changing the way things are done. Here's to hoping that this mx issue produces positive change for your company. No one was hurt from this, so if change is produced without the blood the FAA usually requires, than that's a very good thing regardless.

I also agree that the safety for efficiency exchange might be going a bit too far. The intersection departures are almost surely 'in the green' as far as weights/performance/safety is concerned, but they are undoubtedly closer to the proverbial 'line' where you really do start trading safety for efficiency. Like I said before...working at or near the line is fine until something happens where you open yourself to widespread criticism because certain protections were forfited to keep the operation or your personal schedule on track.