Swa maintenance issues?

[328dude]

"I've been watching this story closely, but trying to make sense of what we know so far:

Southwest contacts the FAA and discloses that .006% of the aircraft skin on some older aircraft missed an inspection.

Southwest requests technical guidance on an expedited inspection of the aircraft over a 10 day period from Boeing and the FAA.

Boeing and the FAA agree the timetable for inspections does not pose a safety risk.

Southwest completes the inspections in eight days.

Boeing says Southwest Airlines acted responsibly and at no time were the aircraft operated in an unsafe manner.

NTSB Senior Air Safety Investigator says there was no risk to flying public and operation of aircraft in question was safe.

FAA said the 10 day timetable for inspection was safe and posed no risk.

FAA inspection program that became an AD (airworthiness directive) was based on the successful maintenance practices at Southwest.

Southwest's 37 year record of safety is the best in the airline industry.

A member of congress says that this is most serious lapse in safety in 23 years.

Is the member of congress a crusader looking for a cause? Does the member of congress need to extend an unrelated event in order to support a cause he is crusading for?"

Link to FAA Allegations of Unsafe Maintenace Practices at Northwest Airlines.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/NWA.pdf

God forbid he investigate the hometown airline. Politics in action.

 

[328dude]

How can you say that? Oberstar is a U.S. Congressman. Congressman are very honorable and trustworthy people with no political agendas or need for political grandstanding.

You're kidding me right?

 

[Cobra17]

You're kidding me right?

There may have been a hint of sarcasm in there.

 

[328dude]

There may have been a hint of sarcasm in there.

I thought so, but had to ask anyway. :beer: on me now.

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram (free registration) writes Southwest "said it would vigorously contest the proposed fine -- the largest levied against an airline by the agency -- and argued that it has an exemplary safety record stretching back 37 years."

Not quite exemplary....

 

[captain007]

all I have to say is.....

I wonder what mesa has done or not done?

 

[Kharma Police]

Dont you work for valujet oh my bad airtran. By the way your company did to it they just changed their name.

So, you are saying that SWA is no better than ValuJet? Maybe if one of your 73s turned into a convertible in flight than you would have to change your name too.

 

[HighSpeedClimb]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Southwest Sacrifices Airline Safety for Profits [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]San Diego, CA 92150-3016 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]March 8 2008 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Over the years, I’ve admired Southwest Airlines for doing things right. It seemed that when other airlines were lowering their standards and compromising their commitment to service and quality, Southwest Airlines struck to its knitting and honored its words and promises to customers. In the process, Southwest created a successful and profitable airline. By offering low fares, frequent flights, a strong safety record, and motivated employees -- who had fun on the job and cared for their customers -- Southwest Airlines became one of America’s most admired companies and desirable places to work.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Now, Southwest is under fire by Congress, consumer groups, and the FAA for allowing more than 100 un-inspected planes to fly despite the fact that some planes had cracks in their fuselages. Four jets were found to have four-inch cracks requiring immediate repair. Six jets had signs of cracks starting to show.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Southwest admits that it allowed its planes to fly with cracks, but denies that it ever placed its crew or passengers in jeopardy. In a statement addressed to its customers, Southwest Airlines said, "We assure our customers that this was never a safety of flight issue." Aviation experts told NBC News that the early damage would not be catastrophic, but cracks could lead to serious problems.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Inspections of airplane fuselages became mandatory in 1988 after an Aloha Airlines Boeing-737 jet cracked open at 24,000 feet while enroute from Honolulu to Hilo killing a flight attendant and injuring seven of the 89 people aboard. Ironically, a passenger noticed a sever fuselage crack as she stepped aboard the Aloha Airlines jet in Honolulu, but never mentioned it to the flight crew.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]To its credit, Southwest discovered the inspection oversight and notified the FAA. But, for reasons not explained, Southwest continued to fly the un-inspected planes on more than 1,400 flights. Federal law requires that planes be grounded until they are in compliance. Southwest cooperated with the FAA throughout the inspection process and told the media is was surprised when the FAA proposed a $10.2 million fine for violating federal regulations.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Is this just a series of misunderstandings and communication breakdowns, or is it -- as the head of a congressional committee suggests -- collusion between the FAA and the airlines it’s supposed to regulate?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Rep. James Oberstar, who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, believes the FAA and the airlines have become too cozy. Oberstar said the committee's investigation was begun after two whistleblowers approached congress after years of trying to correct the inspection problems.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Oberstar called for the FAA to "clean house from top to bottom.” According to Rep. Oberstar, “the relaxed relationship between the FAA and the airlines have led to the sort of lax enforcement that allowed Southwest Airlines to fly at least 117 aircraft past mandatory inspection deadlines.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Oberstar also said he believes similar violations may have occurred involving other airlines, but that those persons who have such evidence are afraid to come forward. What does this disturbing situation say about the integrity of senior management at the airlines and the independence of regulatory agencies like the FAA? Should consumers be worried? The short answer is a resounding yes! The reason is a lack of trust and integrity on the part of airline executives and the FAA.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]When government agencies such as the FAA, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are compromised to the point where leaders fail to lead objectively, and government inspectors fail to perform their duties and uphold the sacred public trust, it is time to “clean house” and change the culture of those organizations as Rep. Oberstar suggests.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]What is happening here is more serious than just coziness and a few omissions by business leaders and government agencies. What is happening here is a blatant disregard for consumer safety and the welfare of our citizens. If warranted, the Department of Justice and federal prosecutors should be asked to investigate and bring criminal charges against those government officials and corporate leaders who knowingly abused the law and abdicated their sworn responsibility to the public by placing an unsuspecting public in danger. In China, they shoot officials who disgrace their office and disregard the public good! While such penalties are extreme, a harsh message needs to be sent to those men and women we have entrusted with the safety of our airlines, drugs, food supply, and products. That message is simply this: honor your oath by doing your job; and, uphold the laws you swore to obey and enforce. If you cannot do this, quit your job. If you fail to uphold the laws, you run the risk of federal prosecution and prison.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]I believe this is where the Southwest Airlines incident crosses the line. When airline executives knowingly thwart the law and risky public safety, it is criminal intent. You cannot convince me that Southwest Airlines, which is managed by hundreds of intelligent and competent people, overlooked one of the basic safety issues of an airline -- compliance with FAA inspections. It is no longer a matter of sloppy documentation and lax oversight; it is criminal behavior on the part of Southwest Airline executives and FAA inspectors who looked the other way. Rep. Oberstar is correct in calling for a top-to-bottom investigation. In order to stop these types of blatant violations, it will require much more than a slap on the wrist. Southwest and the FAA must be held accountable to the full extent of the law.[/FONT]

 

[relief tube]

Guess the free pizza parties aren't going to be "implemented" anymore.

From Usatoday.com

Monday, March 10, 2008

'Safety probe puts FAA in hot seat'​

That's the headline from a story by The Associated Press, one of several media outlets writing about how the FAA's proposed $10.2-million fine for safety violations as Southwest has also turned the spotlight on the agency itself. Rep. James Oberstar, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman and head of a congressional committee investigating the incident, said on Friday that the FAA should "clean house from top to bottom" and has gotten too cozy with the airlines it's supposed to maintain oversight of. USA TODAY also has a story on the subject, writing "FAA officials overseeing Southwest Airlines ignored safety violations, leaked sensitive data to the carrier and tried to intimidate two inspectors to head off investigations, according to previously undisclosed allegations by the inspectors."
AP writes "Oberstar also said he believes similar violations may have occurred involving other airlines, but that those who have such evidence are afraid to come forward." Reuters quotes Oberstar as saying: "So many FAA inspectors have given up reporting failures by carriers because there is a cozy relationship between the FAA management and airline management. That has to stop." The FAA has responded to the criticism in part by saying the USA's safety record speaks for itself. "We believe the system we have now is working well, and that's borne out by the extraordinary low accident rate, but as an organization we are always looking for ways that we can do things better," agency spokesman Les Dorr says.
More details could emerge in the case on April 3, when FAA inspectors involved in the case are expected to testify before the House Transportation Committee. Among the topics likely to discussed is how the FAA responded to complaints from whistle-blowers. USA TODAY writes "whistle-blowers complained repeatedly in memos written in 2007 that their concerns about Southwest were not being taken seriously. The underlying safety concern — that the airline was unable to keep up with mandatory inspections — had been raised as early as 2003, one charged."
USA TODAY cites a memo written by C. Bobby Boutris, one of the whistle-blowers cited in the case. In that memo, Boutris writes: "After eight months, they (Southwest) are finally doing what they were required to do back in March, and this is not by choice. It is very sad that somebody from outside had to force them to do the right thing." Southwest, however, has vigorously denied that compromised safety and points out that its actions at the time were approved by FAA officials.

Posted at 10:25 AM/ET, Mar 10, 2008​

 

[kmox29]

"Any aircraft that does not comply with FARs - federal aviation regulations - is not safe to fly," Oberstar said.


You go girl!

Let's start by impounding all those that have exceeded 250 below 10!

Oberstar is correct with his statement. Your statement is talking about the operation of an aircraft.