Southwest Airlines - Can you BELIEVE these guys?

[BoostedNihilist]

.

[Stevo226]

how long has this been going on? did they just decide not to do them or did they never do them to begin with?

[C-FABH]

The real icing on the cake is that the fatigue cracks were actually found on six of the aircraft (or 13%) having missed inspections. Indeed, a rather scary thought.

how long has this been going on? did they just decide not to do them or did they never do them to begin with?

The article at the above link answers your questions. But I understand that reading is not everyone's cup of tea.

[tired of the ground]

This sounds like it is totally blown out of proportion by someone who has a hate on for Southwest.

1. The FAA let Southwest do the inspections on their timeline. Southwest didn't just ignore it.

2. These aircraft were not necessarily unsafe, they had just performed the inspections on the FAA approved timeline.

3. 1,451 flights over 46 aircraft is 31 flights each, done over probably 3 days.

4. Even though 6 of 46 of the aircraft were found to have cracks in the fuselage, that is what the FAA inspections were for. If they had done the inspections as per Boeing and found the same cracks is that a problem?

So essentially, the FAA allowed them to fly, reneged, fired a couple heads of departments and fined Southwest so they could cover their own asses.

[BoostedNihilist]

.

[tired of the ground]

Boosted - If you read any FAA AD you're going to see that if you have an alternate method of compliance that is approved by the FAA then you are in compliance with the AD.

I didn't say it was right, although they said that other inspections covered the affected areas, just that technically Southwest didn't do anything wrong.

If you think a company will start grounding airplanes because they don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about them, you're going to be very disappointed with the industry.

[Ref Plus 10]

My airplane gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...or is that from the vibration and Janitrol....

[carholme]

tired of the ground;

AMOC does not allow you to go beyond the required time period for the AD. The AD is issued by the FAA and AMOC (Alternate Means of Compliance) only applies to the actual inspection procedures listed in the AD. If you feel you have a better method of conducting that inspection, you apply for AMOC.

The FAA can change the time element for compliance but it will be a revision to the AD for all aircraft/airlines, not Southwest Airlines only.

carholme

[fogghorn]

Southwest Airlines, the walmart of aviation.

[185/310]

Correct me if im wrong but didnt westjet get there business plan from southwest? Not saying westjet is not maintaining there plans but.

[The Hammer]

Please don't insult Southwest.....
They make Westjet look like Low-Cost Amateur's
WestJet is just a slimmer AC without 75 years of "experience"

That's like saying Tie Domi used Mario Lemeiux's playing style as a role model

[BGPrintingLTD]

Does anyone have personal experiences with them? As passengers? I already have confirmed tickets 2 weeks today to AZ

[ottawa,kan]

I've flown on Southwest a lot and I think the people on the plane and on the ground are great. I don't always appreciate the stews warped sense of humour on the PA system, but I think overall it's a great airline. But this AD thing is shocking and inexcusable. 6 planes had skin cracks, some as long as 4 inches. The FAA is proposing a fine of 10 million. Fortunately for SW it's dollars not loonies.

[invertedattitude]

Southwest has one of the safest flight records per million miles flown on the planet, I find it interesting to hear people knocking their safety program.

Both incidents they had were runway overruns due to poor PDM skills. Neither resulted in any fatalities on board, the overrun at Midway resulted in I believe one death in a vehicle.

Considering the size of their fleet, miles flown per day, and their length of service to date, I wouldn't hesitate to fly on Love Air.

[twotter]

tired of the ground;

AMOC does not allow you to go beyond the required time period for the AD. The AD is issued by the FAA and AMOC (Alternate Means of Compliance) only applies to the actual inspection procedures listed in the AD. If you feel you have a better method of conducting that inspection, you apply for AMOC.

The FAA can change the time element for compliance but it will be a revision to the AD for all aircraft/airlines, not Southwest Airlines only.

carholme

Actually Carholme the AMOC will dictate what the time is and once it is approved it will apply not the AD time. So you could get an AMOC that lets you go beyond the AD timeframe but you must comply with what's approved in the AMOC..

[CD]

What is an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) for an Airworthiness Directive (AD)?

Different approaches or techniques that are not specified in an AD can, after FAA approval, be used to correct an unsafe condition on an aircraft or aircraft product. Although the alternative may not have been known at the time the AD was issued, an alternative method could be acceptable to accomplish the intent of the AD. A compliance time that differs from the requirements of the AD can also be approved if the revised time period provides an acceptable level of safety that is at least equivalent to that of the requirements of the AD.

FAA - Alternative Method of Compliance

[carholme]

Twotter;

You are the only one who got it. The point was in reference to many who were saying that Boeing did not have a problem with Southwests explanation of the events. That being the point, why did Southwest not use Boeings comments in an AMOC submission to the FAA
That is, Southwest did not talk to Boeing until after the oversight and are trying to use Boeings comments to show that they really did not have a problem after all. However the FAA feels that they did have a 10 million dollar problem.

carholme

[Changes in Latitudes]

Let's not recall that they ran a 737 off a runway a few years back and killed a 6 year old kid in a car at an intersection. Everyone pointed to pilot error, but very little was said about a company structure that encourages crews to conduct marginal approaches to Midway's less than substantial (but adequate) runways, use of autobrake settings that maginalize performance but improve gate turn around times...how many people in their safety department resigned after that accident again? Oh wait, that never made the news. A very interesting company, with some very interesting practices and I am baffled about how they get away with many of the things that they do.

[pianodude]

i quit flying 15 years ago for crap like that and it still hasn't changed....

[Rebel]

This latest report by Reuters makes one wonder what the truth is...

"US aviation regulators on Thursday proposed a USD$10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines, the largest safety penalty ever, for allegedly failing to inspect planes for structural cracks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Southwest continued to fly uninspected aircraft even after the carrier notified the agency that it had missed a mandatory deadline to complete fuselage inspections on older aircraft. Southwest flies only Boeing 737 planes and the inspection program was part of an FAA initiative to more closely examine structural fatigue in older planes.

The FAA said Southwest operated 46 planes on nearly 60,000 flights while "failing to comply" with a requirement for repeat inspections. It continued to operate the same planes on more than 1,400 additional flights after discovering in March 2007 that it missed the inspection deadline, the FAA said. Southwest can appeal the proposed fine, which would be the largest ever against an airline if enforced. The largest to date is a USD$9.5 million penalty against Eastern Airlines in the 1980s. (Source: Reuters"

[L1011]

re: Cracks in the fuselage/skin

This is a known saftey issue with these planes. Has been since 1994 in Hawaii.

Are you referring to Aloha 243 in 1988?

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view ... a+Airlines

That was a slightly unique case, with the aircraft always operating in areas surrounded by salt water, and with short island hops, the aircraft endured a very high number of cycles. Not saying that this excuses Southwest, but to say that the 737 has a known safety issue stemming from that isolated incident is a little farfetched.

I would still fly Southwest. Beats the hell out of United, that's for sure!

[Rebel]

[quote="L1011 I would still fly Southwest. Beats the hell out of United, that's for sure![/quote]


Actually I’d like to see if any major cracks are discovered in the subject airframes. My companies experience with used US carrier’s aircraft hasn’t been stellar, to put it mildly.. In a word they run them into the ground, no pun intended.

[carholme]

Six of the aircraft were found to have cracking up to 4" in length.

carholme

[Rebel]

Six of the aircraft were found to have cracking up to 4" in length.

carholme

Hmm from a safety point of view exactly how dangerous are cracks of this length?

Personally I'm uncomfortable with cracks of any length in machines that I fly. They weren't designed to fly around with cracks in them. Cracks lead to structure failure and that's not a good thing.

It certainly makes me question what else have they papered over..

[boeingboy]

Personally I'm uncomfortable with cracks of any length in machines that I fly. They weren't designed to fly around with cracks in them.

Well - I guess you know everything then.

Actually, all ac built - since the late eighties I believe - have this designed into them - It's called the MSG-3 design principal. They do crack and are designed to be structurally safe untill that crack gets to a certain limit (this of course varies from place to place on the aircraft). Inspections are there to find them long before they get to a critical length.

As for cracks in the skin - who knows what (if any) length is acceptible. Someone here at Westjet should have l look in the SRM and tell us if they are allowed. I wouldn't think they would allow them in the skin of the pressure vessel though.