southwest 737 hole ruled metal fatigue

[protectthehornet]

Just read the report on that 737 making an emergency landing at KCRW due to a holein the fuselage.

ruled as metal fatigue.

[bArt2]

Metal fatique might indeed cause a hole. Did it say why the metal got so tired?

[Storminnorm]

If the Southwest maintenance is THAT slack, WHY are they still flying?
I'm surprised the Feds let 'em get away with it.

[411A]

A design deficiency with an older Boeing design, no more nor less.
Those with long memories will recall many 707's with stress cracks in these fuselage crown areas, so this is nothing new.
What is new is the somewhat cavalier attitude with regard to Southwest's maintenance/inspection criteria.
Having said this, the FAA is about to announce a $25million fine for American Airlines for duff maintenance procedures.

[rottenray]

411a writes:
Having said this, the FAA is about to announce a $25million fine for American Airlines for duff maintenance procedures.From what I've read, the "high points" seem to be these...
-- AA was responsible for pointing out a problem in wiring lay which could allow the handle of a manual (hand operated) hydraulic pump to contact a wiring loom
-- Boeing's original SB "fix" was to add a protective sheath and make sure the loom was tied at least every 4"
-- AA wrote an ECO indicating ties at "approximately" every inch to be sure that Boeing's four-inch requirement was easily complied with
-- A poorly-written AD specified 1" intervals, but without the word "approximate"
-- AA is being dinged because some of the tie intervals are 1.2" to 1.25"

Hardly duff maintenance. And it seems that AA has never used that manual hydraulic pump.

Hindsight says they would have been smarter to ban the pump's use via SOP, and not say a damn thing to anyone about the wiring issue.

Great atmosphere the FAA is fostering lately, I'm sure it will really improve safety!



Sask writes:
One has to draw some connection to Southwest's maintenance irregularities and oversights?From this post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/316850-records-southwest-airlines-flew-unsafe-planes.html#post3962455):
Southwest Airlines Responds to FAA Letter of Penalty (http://www.southwest.com/swamedia/stmt_20080306.html)

DALLAS--March 6, 2007--Receipt of the FAA letter of penalty gives us the chance to present our case and get the facts out which we feel will support our actions taken back in March 2007. We understand the FAA's concerns, and we are anxious to work with them. We assure our Customers that this was never a safety of flight issue.

The FAA penalty is related to one of many routine and redundant inspections on our aircraft fleet involving an extremely small area in one of the many overlapping inspections. These inspections were designed to detect early signs of skin cracking.

Southwest Airlines discovered *the missed inspection area, disclosed it to the FAA, and promptly reinspected all potentially affected aircraft in March 2007. The FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007. The Boeing Company supports Southwest's aggressive compliance plan was technically valid, and in Boeing's opinion, Southwest acted responsibly and the safety of the fleet was not compromised.

Southwest has an excellent maintenance program, with more Boeing 737 aircraft experience than any carrier in the world. Our experience has helped improve the overall safety of the fleet.

* A spokeswoman for Southwest, Linda Rutherford, acknowledged that when the airline disclosed its error, it checked a box saying it had ceased the violation. But, she said, that was an “administrative error.”

“We continued flying with the concurrence of F.A.A. and the F.A.A.’s approval of our plan to bring ourselves back into compliance,” Ms. Rutherford said.

She added that the airline had inspected “99.4 percent” of the area it was supposed to, but, because of an error in the computer program that tells inspectors what tasks to accomplish, skipped 0.6 percent.

“This was never an issue of a safety-of-flight concern,” she said.

F.A.A. Fines Southwest Air in Inspections NY Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/business/07air.html)


Boeing Statement on Southwest 737 Fleet Safety

Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of their technical opinion that the continued operation of their Classic 737s, for up to ten days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue. Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded the 10-day compliance plan was technically valid. In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised. What sort of connection would you wish to draw?

Would you be trying to connect WN's safety record with their maintenance? Google that for yourself, and compare their single death and ~ 8 accidents/incidents to other line's safety records.

WN is fun to pick on, though - despite them paying better and having a very positive customer rating.

[Machinbird]

Just read the report on that 737 making an emergency landing at KCRW due to a holein the fuselage.

Hornet, do you have a link to the report?
I wouldn't be surprised if subtle crown area damage on a fuselage was caused by the maintenance troops walking around up there with their tool boxes and size 14 brogans. Putting a slight dent in the skin next to a frame might set up a localized stress area which 10 years down the road would vary from the engineering fatigue expectations. With all that terrain up there it would be a bear to inspect. This scenario doesn't apply to just B type aircaft either. Let's hope that the guys with the sliderules worked out the blowout limitation strategy properly as they seem to have in this case.