SWA Makes emergency landing in Yuma AZ

[Beetle007]

.....

 

[Beetle007]

.....

 

[waveflyer]

I can't think of one transport category airframe that hasn't had serious problems of some kind-and the 737 is the most prolific airliner in history-
So Just relax- no one can say that Wn is unscrutinized in the last 5 years- our mx programs have been under the microscope by every authority possible- this'll get handled-

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

3 more jets....

hmmmm....must be a Boeing problem.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

[/LIST]
[/LIST]Looks like a Boeing problem to me! a/0:nuts:

What's that? An internal company memo? Come up for air...your Koolaid snorkel full of Luv is choking you out.....uke:

Another "report" says that an existing repair was found near the hole.

 

[Rough67]

SWA Returns 19 Inspected B737-300s to Service, But Two Show Cause For Repair
Cracks on Two Planes Require Additional Maintenance
The media feeding frenzy that started over this week's emergency landing of an elder Boeing 737-300 is likely to go on for a while. While the aircraft involved made a safe landing in Yuma after first descending at a rapid rate to get to a breathable ambient pressure, evidence continues to mount that this aircraft may have had visible issues prior to the actual failure. NTSB spokespersons have confirmed that the aircraft involved showed evidence of previous damage while two other SWA B737s (all of the 300 variant) were reported to require 'additional repairs.'



According to Southwest Airlines, their inspection of the 737-300 fleet revealed the following:

In cooperation with Boeing, an additional inspection program was set up for a subset of the Southwest 737-300. The inspection involved a non-destructive test (NDT) in the form of High-Frequency Eddy current of the aircraft skin. This test is designed to detect any subsurface fatigue in the skin that is not visible to the eye.
As of 4 p.m. Central time Sunday, 19 planes had undergone the intense inspection with no findings, and those planes have been returned to service.
In two other airplanes, the testing did detect small, subsurface cracks. Further evaluation and potential repairs will be necessary before those planes are returned to service.
Inspections of the remaining aircraft in the sub-fleet (79 total) will continue for the next few days. As inspections are completed with no findings, those planes will continue to be put back into service today and Monday. The airline anticipates completing the inspections by late Tuesday. The 79 aircraft designated for the additional inspections were designed differently in the manufacturing process.
Southwest continues its cooperation to the ongoing investigation being led by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) into the cause of the hole in the airplane which diverted to Yuma, AZ, on Friday, April 1.
Sunday, Southwest expects to cancel approximately 300 flights while the inspections are ongoing. Customers should continue to check flight status at www.southwest.com for any changes to their flights as a result of inspections and out-of-service aircraft.
Southwest continues to try and put a good spin on things with statements like, "I could not be more proud of our Maintenance and Engineering professionals who supported Boeing and the FAA in the establishment of these new inspection procedures," said Mike Van de Ven, Southwest's Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. "Boeing has since identified an inspection program for this section of the aircraft. Based on this incident and the additional findings, we expect further action from Boeing and the FAA for operators of the 737-300 fleet worldwide."


SWA B737-300

At the same time, SWA has had problems in this arena before and the cry for additional FAA oversight of this and other airplanes is increasing. Southwest notes that it operates a total 737 fleet of 548 planes and that "the fleet is constantly undergoing rigorous checks and inspections as directed by the FAA and Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. These checks and inspections are dictated by number of cycles (a cycle is a takeoff and landing) and on a calendar basis as well."

"Our highest priority is the safety of our Employees and Customers," Van de Ven said. "Prior to the event regarding Flight 812, we were in compliance with the FAA-mandated and Boeing-recommended structural inspection requirements for that aircraft. What we saw with Flight 812 was a new and unknown issue. We regret any Customer inconveniences as a result of the inspections currently underway. Delays and cancellations are never the preference, however we are taking every precaution we can to ensure that our operation is safe."

 

[nimtz]

Yep this only happened at SW because of bad luck and poor construction by Boeing. No reason for suspecting any quality control problems in the quest to keep those low fares low.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/03/us-southwest-faa-idUSN0340389320080403

 

[Fly High]

On Fox News, Geraldo Rivera was being interviewed regarding a "Fire Fight" that he was caught in while covering the war story in Libya. He was asked what thoughts were running through his mind while being shot at. His answer was, "I thought, at least I am not on a Southwest Airlines Flight". OUCH!

 

[Groucho]

WFD - Widespread Fatigue Damage

[FONT=&quot]This incident will have a political impact. The FAA and congress have been dragging their feet, with help from the airline industry. This issue first came to public view with the Aloha Boeing 737 incident. Now it comes home to roost with the largest Boeing 737 operator in the US.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I hope they get it right this time. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]NPRM 06 -04 Aging Aircraft program:[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Proposed Rules[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• 06-04 Aging Aircraft Program: Widespread[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fatigue Damage, Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 74[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Issued April 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• Proposed WFD Rule, if adopted, will require Type Certificate Holders (TCH) to:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– Submit a Compliance Plan to the FAA within 60 days of rule becoming effective[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– Complete WFD Assessments of major structural components[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– Establish Operating Limits for the aircraft[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– Provide service information for maintenance actions to preclude WFD (including effects of repairs)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• Proposed WFD Rule – “The Issue”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– Aircraft originally certified under FAA “Failsafe” criteria cannot meet Failsafe requirements at the onset of WFD[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– Inspection programs are not reliable enough to detect MSD/MED cracking of the size and density that would compromise structural integrity (i.e. fail-safety) in the event of a single Principle Structural Element (PSE) failure[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]See this web site: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ng-airplane-program-widespread-fatigue-damage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Flopgut]

Typical.

Not accurate, but exactly what we've all come to expect from you.

How much sheetmetal work have you done?

I've done it. And I'm no longer on here bashing SWA every thread so you might consider that.

It's the one of the very few things that SWA does not do well. It's an easy fix, really. Top notch sheetmetal isn't too much more than average/poor. Just has to become an emphasis.

I don't think it would be entirely inappropriate for you to mention that to your SWAPA safety guys....

Edit: I'm checking out of this thread. I don't want to get caught up in some spat with you guys. I don't know that there are "SWA haters", so much as there are a group of SWA pilots on here that absolutely can not accept any critique or suggestion...