Swa maintenance issues?

[mdf]

Southwest Airlines has added a news release to its Investor Relations website.

Title: Former NTSB Investigator in Charge Offers Safety of Flight Assessment on Behalf of Southwest Airlines
Date: 3/7/2008 4:55:00 PM

For a complete listing of our news releases, please click here

DALLAS, March 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The following is a statement by
Gregory A. Feith:


I was requested by Southwest Airlines (SWA) to review and assess the
potential safety of flight risk that could have resulted from the continued
in-service operation of 46 of their Classic 737 airplanes in March 2007 as
they progressively inspected a small area (under 0.6%) of the fuselage skin as
required by FAA Airworthiness Directive 2004-18-06. The assessment involved
the review of technical documents associated with both mandatory and
non-mandatory inspections, pertinent service/maintenance history for the
46 airplanes, a technical briefing by the Southwest Airlines Engineering
Department and technical data/analysis provided by Boeing (the airplane
manufacturer) related to structural integrity of fuselage skin cracks that
were found on five of the 46 SWA airplanes. The scope of the assessment was
confined to the safety of flight issues only.


Based on the information I have reviewed, it is apparent that on March 15,
2007, SWA initiated re-inspection of the affected airplanes to accomplish the
inadvertently missed portion of FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-18-06.
A review of the historical information that led to the issuance of the AD
indicates that a progressive inspection for fuselage skin cracking was
initially distributed to operators in the form of a "non-mandatory" Service
Bulletin (SB) that provided "risk mitigation" actions that operators were
encouraged to incorporate into their maintenance program. This Service
Bulletin was based, in large part, on an inspection program developed by
Southwest Airlines. The issuance of the AD was a continued effort to ensure
that cracks in the fuselage skin on the Boeing 737 airplanes were identified
and mitigated well before they could pose a safety of flight issue. It is
evident from the 4500 hour initial inspection requirement (regardless of
aircraft age (i.e. flight cycles)) that the FAA did not regard the skin
cracking as an "immediate threat" to the safety of flight of the airplane.
Thus, the FAA Airworthiness Directive permitted aircraft to remain in-service
for approximately 1 1/2 years, until a normally scheduled heavy maintenance
visit occurred, before the first inspection was required.


In addition, it is evident from the analysis and testing data developed by
Boeing that cracks up to 6 inches in the fuselage skin do not compromise the
structural integrity or pose a safety of flight issue. This is further
supported by the design of the fuselage structure which incorporates "internal
reinforcing doublers in the skin assembly" and "tearstraps," both of which are
intended to provide strength, and slow or abate the growth rate of a crack
under normal operating aerodynamic loads.


Based on the available data and information reviewed, it is apparent that
there was no risk to the flying public in March 2007 while Southwest Airlines
performed their program to re-inspect the small area of aircraft fuselages
identified in the AD inspection that was inadvertently missed.


Gregory A. Feith
International Aviation Safety & Security Consultant

 

[erj-145mech]

First, lets remember....SWA didn't try to hide anything. They self-disclosed to the FAA.

Negative, the FAA inspectors found it and brought it to the attention of SWA, and they said, "Oh Yeah". Self disclosed is not making over 60,000 flights over inspection, and racking up $10MM in fines.

If SWA had Boeings concurance on the safety, they would have it in writing through an AMOC (alternate method of compliance), which would have made it legal.

 

[PCL_128]

This is reminiscent of the JetBlue transcon turn debacle. JetBlue got their POI to approve it, even though they were fully aware (or should have been, anyway) that a POI doesn't have the power to waive this stuff. Now here comes SWA saying that their local PMI approved something that he doesn't have the power to approve. Is this the new thing for management? Just pretend that you don't understand the rules and shift all of the blame to the Certificate Management Office for their carrier?

 

[JoeMerchant]

This is reminiscent of the JetBlue transcon turn debacle. JetBlue got their POI to approve it, even though they were fully aware (or should have been, anyway) that a POI doesn't have the power to waive this stuff. Now here comes SWA saying that their local PMI approved something that he doesn't have the power to approve. Is this the new thing for management? Just pretend that you don't understand the rules and shift all of the blame to the Certificate Management Office for their carrier?

Actually the Jetblue transcon turn "debacle" made a lot of sense.....Duty time and circadian rythem contribute more to fatique than actual flight time. A 9 hour flight time day with 12 hours of duty and back to your own time zone makes more sense than going to the hotel on the west coast only to duty in later for a red eye back to the east coast so as to avoid the 8 hour issue....

 

[PCL_128]

Actually the Jetblue transcon turn "debacle" made a lot of sense.....Duty time and circadian rythem contribute more to fatique than actual flight time. A 9 hour flight time day with 12 hours of duty and back to your own time zone makes more sense than going to the hotel on the west coast only to duty in later for a red eye back to the east coast so as to avoid the 8 hour issue....

I disagree with your assertion, but that isn't really the point of the post. The point was that JetBlue was operating flights in violation of the regulations simply because their POI said it was ok. That's not how it works. You can't do something in violation of the law or regulations simply because your POI or PMI says you can. They don't have that sort of power.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I disagree with your assertion, but that isn't really the point of the post. The point was that JetBlue was operating flights in violation of the regulations simply because their POI said it was ok. That's not how it works. You can't do something in violation of the law or regulations simply because your POI or PMI says you can. They don't have that sort of power.

....I agree the POI can't do that, but why do you disagree with the 8 hour flight time rule being modified for this situation?

Do you really believe it safer to duty out on the left coast, go to the hotel and then fly a red eye back? I really don't understand the 8 hour flight time issue....

 

[PCL_128]

but why do you disagree with the 8 hour flight time rule being modified for this situation?

Flight and duty time limitations need to be tightened, not loosened. I might be willing to compromise on it if the change also included a FAR-mandated limitation of a 12-hour duty day. Without that, no deal.

 

[G100driver]

oh yeah.

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

so sorry.

Caused by management not doing required inspections. (which would have led to a repair .... which of course most of us know is the purpose of an inspection)

 

[JoeMerchant]

Flight and duty time limitations need to be tightened, not loosened. I might be willing to compromise on it if the change also included a FAR-mandated limitation of a 12-hour duty day. Without that, no deal.

The problem is that would result in fewer days off.... Safety is safety....If 9 hours of flying isn't safe, then it isn't safe even with a 12 hour duty day.....

The fact is, this was opposed by the ALPA legacy carriers because it would have given Jetblue a competive advantage.....Once again safety was used as an excuse as was age 60......

It isn't the hours of flying that is fatiguing....It is the duty time and the circadian rythem and the number of legs.....

 

[Poahi]

....12 hours of duty and back ... makes more sense than ...a red eye back to the east coast so as to avoid the 8 hour issue....

Two wrongs don't make a right. And it's a slippery slope.

I wouldn't want my kids on a flight landing back at JFK on an icy runway after a long day like that. Long days and flip flop duty periods are what we're trying to fight in the first place.