Swa maintenance issues?

[CaptJax]

SWA Faces $10.2M Penalty

Southwest faces a $10.2 million penalty

FAA says airline didn't inspect older planes for fuselage cracking


David Koenig, Associated Press
Friday, March 7, 2008

(03-07) 04:00 PST Dallas --
Federal regulators said Thursday they will seek a civil penalty of $10.2 million - the largest ever - against Southwest Airlines Co. for failing to inspect older planes for cracks and then flying them before inspections were done.
The FAA said Southwest operated nearly 60,000 flights in 2006 and 2007 using 46 planes that had not been inspected for possible fatigue-related cracking on their fuselages.
The airline then flew 1,451 flights with the same planes last March, even after discovering that it had failed to conduct the required inspections, the FAA charged.
The agency had ordered airlines in September 2004 to conduct repeat inspections of some areas of the fuselage on some older models of Boeing 737 aircraft.
"The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said Nicholas Sabatini, the agency's associate administrator for safety. "We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action."
The airline said Thursday that it had complied with regulators' requests and would contest any penalty. The airline has 30 days to respond to the FAA.
The aim of the FAA's 2004 directive was to make sure airline crews found and repaired small cracks before they became large enough to pose a safety hazard.
A spokeswoman for Southwest, Beth Harbin, said the airline brought the issue to the FAA's attention and believed it had handled the matter to the agency's satisfaction. Harbin said the airline believed the case was closed last year.
"We brought in 46 airplanes to take another look at them," Harbin said. "These are preventive inspections. On six of the 46 we found the start of some very small cracking. That's the intent of the inspection schedule - to find something before it becomes a problem. These are safe planes."
The FAA itself has come under fire for the Southwest case. A congressional committee and the Transportation Department's inspector general are looking into why the FAA didn't ground the planes when it learned of the missed inspections a year ago.
Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House transportation committee, said he got information from whistle-blowers indicating that an FAA inspector let Southwest operate flights before properly inspecting the planes. A hearing on that matter was scheduled for next week but has been postponed until April.
FAA regulations require that airplanes be grounded if a mandatory inspection has been missed, until the work can be performed.
The FAA could have sought a penalty of $25,000 per violation, or up to $36 million, according to a person close to the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity.
This article appeared on page C - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

[vixin]

......................

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Gary Kelly was on CNN this morning presenting his case. I don't think he would stick his neck out like that if SWA did not have a valid argument. The Fed who extended the deadline is probably no longer a Fed...SWA was just doing what it was told it could do. If I applied for an extension and they approved it...then how am I in violation???

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

In addition, SWA and the FAA PMI then consulted with Boeing on the issue. Both agreed with Boeing's assesment that the acft in question could continue to fly as long as the inspections were completed within the following 10 days.

the inspections were completed and the FAA PMI told SWA that the case was closed.

what happened here is that other FAA folks who don't have anything to do with SWA, got wind of this and reported it to higher ups.

An in house-pi$$ing contest is what it looks like to me.

I'll bet right now....not $1 in a fine is held against SWA in this matter, and Oberstar ends up looking like a fool.

Anybody remember Bob Hoover and his case against the FAA?

 

[AV80R]

It was Aloha.

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

You're right, thanks for the correction.

 

[The Prussian]

This update released at 2:04EST


Southwest CEO calls for investigation into FAA penalty
By Christopher Hinton

<IMG class=pixelTracking height=1 width=1 border=0>LUV 12.22, -0.28, -2.2%) Chief Executive Gary Kelly said Friday he was surprised by the Federal Aviation Administration's proposed $10.2 million penalty against the carrier and called for an investigation. The FAA said Southwest found six of its 46 airplanes had fatigue cracks in their fuselages. "We voluntarily reported that to the FAA," Kelly said in a statement. "We worked out with the FAA how to fix that problem, and we fixed it. We were surprised yesterday to get that notification." Kelly said Southwest has had no safety issues with the FAA in the last month and wants an investigation into the penalty. Southwest shares were down 2.6% to $12.13.

 

[Babylon]

Look it's the highest fine the FAA has ever imposed in its history - that says something. And yes, SWA has always been the baby of ATC and probably portions of the FAA. Remember that they could have fined up to $36M but there was some sort that that would be too high a fine for a any carrier it today's market.

SWA screwed up - its obvious. Of course Kelly and the rest of SWA management have to defend the carrier but the fact remains that this was a very serious error/oversight. This will probably have some legs for a bit of time.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

SWA screwed up - its obvious. --->And then self-disclosed to the FAA.Of course Kelly and the rest of SWA management have to defend the carrier but the fact remains that this was a very serious error/oversight.--->It was...so they contacted Boeing about it. Boeing told them that it would be safe to fly those airplanes for another 10 days so the inspections could get scheduled. The inspections got completed in 8 days...2 days under the deadline that was approved by the FAA. The FAA then considered the matter closed. This will probably have some legs for a bit of time.--->On FI.com...yes...but in the national press...no. This is over by tomorrow....I'll even bet that by tomorrow is isn't even mentioned in the Dallas Morning News. Additionally, I'm even betting that SWA never pays one penny of a fine.

Remember the Bob Hoover deal

 

[Whataburger]

Ready.........Shoot...........Aim!

 

[THEPRFCT10]

SWA and Boeing response

I apologize if this was already posted here earlier:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/03/06/southwest.air.pdf

 

[Poahi]

This is over by tomorrow....I'll even bet that by tomorrow is isn't even mentioned in the Dallas Morning News. Additionally, I'm even betting that SWA never pays one penny of a fine.[/B]

Remember the Bob Hoover deal

I'll take the other side of that bet. When a Democratic Congressman who represents a hub city for a competing airline that doesn't want you there, is requesting immediate Congressional hearings over an admitted safety issue, the press is going to continue to run with the story.

 

[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.