FAA's Fine Against SWA Mx Bad for Safety?

[Alcatraz]

Regardless of whether SWA was in the wrong with their inspections or whether the fine is inappropriate, I think a bunch of us are missing the bigger issure here, which is the FAA's change in how it handles "self-disclosure."

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of "self-disclosure" is to improve safety. If a company discovers through it's own internal auditing that it inadvertently isn't in compliance with a regulation, it discloses this info to the FAA along with a description of why it happened and what will be done to keep it from happening again. As a result of being proactive in it's compliance with regulations, a company would get a lesser penalty so it would be encouraged to self-disclose in the future. (Isn't this right? It's sorta like an ASAP or ASRS for airlines and contractors)

"Self-disclosure," as I have described above, is GOOD for safety because companies would be able to disclose processes and other types of mistakes that result in non-compliance, and the FAA and other companies in the industry could work together and share information to improve processes. Therefore, self disclosure should result in more industry-wide compliance with regulation (and theoretically, improve safety).

The problem with the $10mil fine against SWA is that SWA self-disclosed and still got slapped with a big fine! Won't this make all airlines and aviation companies... not just SWA... LESS likely to self-disclose, resulting in less information being passed around the industry, ultimately affecting safety in a negative way?

Combine this with the problems that ASAP programs just ran into a few weeks ago with the Comair crash in LEX and I'd say aviation safety, especially in relation to human factors, has taken a big step back in the last few weeks.

Is my description of self-disclosure wrong? Or are my perception of how penalties resulting from self disclosures wrong? I'm no expert on FAA enforcement issues. What do you all think?

 

[viper548]

I saw somewhere that the fine could have been triple what it is now

 

[Eaglepuke]

I thought the standard fine was $10000 per violation. That would make the proper fine in the hundreds of millions. I would say the fine is bad for safety because it only is $180 per flight. And as for self-disclosing, the violation was no accident. It was intentional.

 

[be-400xpdriver]

Southwest self disclosed last spring and the plane are finally getting fixed, a year later. So they were not fined for self disclosing they were fined because the kept flying the aircraft with out fixing them.

 

[roughneck]

So they were not fined for self disclosing they were fined because the kept flying the aircraft with out fixing them.

Horse********************! The FAA (our governing body) agreed to a MX inspection plan which we completed in 10 days after their approval.

I don't know the details about we we initially missed the inspections, or why the FAA let us continue to fly for the next 10 days, but I do know that the governing body approved our plan to inspect the aircraft and that we complied with the mutually agreed upon plan within 10 days.

We grounded the planes today after we found out the FAA was "cozy" with our MX supervisors in an attempt to make sure we have done what we should have done, regardless of what the FAA said was ok. It seems obvious that we made some mistakes and the FAA allowed us to make them.

If the governing body approves it, it should be on them. This is just legislative grandstanding.

 

[PCL_128]

"The FAA" didn't approve your delayed mx plan, your PMI did. He has no authority to do any such thing, and your company knows it. Why do SWA pilots insist on making excuses for this? You should be outraged at your company for forcing you to fly potentially unsafe airplanes without your knowledge.

 

[roughneck]

The FAA" didn't approve your delayed mx plan, your PMI did.

You are an idiot if you believe that. Our PMI is our FAA representative who speaks and acts on behalf of the FAA. Our PMI is the FAA as far as any airline is concerned. He is the authority for the FAA. What he agrees to, is what we go by.

Do you think that a waiver in your ops specs doesn't trump a FAR? The FAA representatives who grant waivers, etc. have the power to trump FAR's. What they say goes.

Obviously, there are issues that neither you or I are aware of here, but to think the PMI doesn't have the power to make exceptions or grant waivers just shows your lack of knowledge.

 

[PCL_128]

You should do some research. Your understanding of the POI's/PMI's power is incorrect. He has zero authority to override required mx inspections.

 

[roughneck]

Let me guess, you are the CFI that tries to argue with the check airmen?

Your infinite wisdom is overwhelming. I will leave you to worry about your own mess at America West.

Good luck.

 

[PCL_128]

I don't work at America West. Wrong again.

 

[Flopgut]

I'm one of not too many pilots with supervisory mx experience in an air carrier operation. PCL is right.

 

[viper548]

This is the same reason Jetblue got in trouble for exceeding the 8 hour flight time. Someone WITHOUT the authority to allow it signed off on it. Kinda like if tower tells you to fly 300 knots below 10,000ft. Just because someone that works for the FAA says yes, it doesn't mean you can do it.

 

[viper548]

duplicate

 

[PCL_128]

Exactly. Same reason your FOM says that the FARs take precedence if they are more restrictive than your manual. No POI has the authority to override the regs, required mx inspections, training requirements, etc...

 

[328dude]

Airtran dude is correct. POI's can't override regs.

 

[say again]

You gotta pay for your screw ups, and SWA royally f-ed up.

Self-disclosure or not, this wasn't a minor offense and now they must pay the consequences.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

The FAA" didn't approve your delayed mx plan, your PMI did.

You are an idiot if you believe that. Our PMI is our FAA representative who speaks and acts on behalf of the FAA. Our PMI is the FAA as far as any airline is concerned. He is the authority for the FAA. What he agrees to, is what we go by.

Do you think that a waiver in your ops specs doesn't trump a FAR? The FAA representatives who grant waivers, etc. have the power to trump FAR's. What they say goes.

Obviously, there are issues that neither you or I are aware of here, but to think the PMI doesn't have the power to make exceptions or grant waivers just shows your lack of knowledge.

FYI,

The only people who can issue a "waiver" to anything major is FAA HQ, 800 Independence Ave., Wash, DC.

Additionally, the only people who can give an 'Official' interpretation of the FARs, is 'FAA Legal' at FAA HQ, again 800 Independence Ave., Wash, DC. This is what got JB in trouble the other year when they were going by an interpretation by a POI.

The people running SWA know all of this also, and if they were going by a 'waiver' from a FSDO PMI; then quite simply, they know (or should have known) they were WRONG, peroid.

For all of the SWA "kool-aide drinkers" and cheerleaders; think about it for a second, everything turned out all right, they did not find anything serious other than 'minor cracks' in like 6 a/c. However, since the inspections were NOT done, suppose there would have been a 'more then minor crack' in at least one a/c, not caught, and under normal pressurization at fight, a part of the outer skin separated; end result, possibly 100+ dead bodies scattered across the ground. Or worse yet, the same thing happening to more than one a/c, and could have 'risked' the entire Company.

SWA was just 'lucky' nothing SERIOUS occurred.

I have flown these '737 classics' and one sign that the inspections were done right, is the appearance of 'numerous scab patches' on the forward fuselage.

Also, Years, and years ago, when I was in college, I worked an 'internship' at FAA HQ in Wash, DC, so I do know how the system works, most of the real 'authority' is held at the top of the Agency. It was a real good education and experience in how the sytem works, and still benefits me to this day. The FSDOs, and even 'Regional' do NOT have alot of authority when it comes to 'major' issues. Again, FYI, every pilot should keep this in mind, when the POI, PMI, or FSDO, says something??

For what it worth.

DA

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

Lets be clear, this is why SWA was supposed to be making these inspections. Would you want your family in the back?

They got lucky and so did their passengers. It ain't about whether the fine is excessive, or if people are SWA Bashers or SWA Apologists. They were not acting in the interest of air safety at SWA or FAA.

They were irresponsible. They self disclosed, and then kept on flying these planes in defiance of FARs. Just because you 'fess up doesn't mean you don't have to fix the problem no matter what your pocket POI says.

Hey SWA, pay the fine and STFU. Count your blessings that no body died while you let 43 planes (8% of your fleet) fly without very necessary inspections.