Southwest Grounds over 100 737s
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tewksbury Mass USA
Age: 80
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southwest AD
Looks to be AD 2007-03-07.AD Link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...2007-03-07.pdf
If they missed AD mandated inspections - rather than "overlooking" an MPD task, that's really serious.
Compliance with applicable AD's is Airworthiness 101 - many operators have dedicated personnel that have AD compliance as their primary (or only) task.
If it was a missed AD, I expect a rather large fine will be forthcoming
Compliance with applicable AD's is Airworthiness 101 - many operators have dedicated personnel that have AD compliance as their primary (or only) task.If it was a missed AD, I expect a rather large fine will be forthcoming
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missed rudder systems checks at Southwest Airlines
Brandy King of Southwest Airlines says," As a result of this discovery, 128 -700 aircraft were identified as having overflown a required check."
Is this similar to overflying an airport?
Meanwhile, this will distract valuable legal time at Southwest Airlines already fighting multi-million dollar fines previously assessed.
Right decent of the FAA to give them five days though.
Is this similar to overflying an airport?
Meanwhile, this will distract valuable legal time at Southwest Airlines already fighting multi-million dollar fines previously assessed.
Right decent of the FAA to give them five days though.
Last edited by jack11111; 26th Feb 2015 at 00:29. Reason: Added thought
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article link within post 2, had originally stated it was not an AD overrun.
If it was an AD overrun, it is unlikely the FAA would have allowed the 5 days for compliance.
If it was an AD overrun, it is unlikely the FAA would have allowed the 5 days for compliance.
SWA apparently overflew routine inspection tasks (apparently NOT an AD) related to a hyd/rudder backup system on 128 aircraft before noting the error. They grounded the subject airplanes and self-disclosed this fact to the FAA. This action is most often interpreted to mean that an act of ommission occurred as opposed to a more serious violation involving willful negligence. In FAA-speak, self-disclosure indicates a "compliance attitude". Failure to detect and disclose, or attempts to hide a violation are viewed in the opposite way and usually result in maximum sanctions in accordance with current agency policy being sought against the violator. (as in the case SWA is currently seeking a reduction in sanctions for a past violation)
In FAA-land, self-disclosure of certain kinds of inadvertent rules violations, along with an acceptable correction plan often eliminates the imposition of sanctions against the airline for the violation. Of course this is better for them than "being caught" and the policy is intended to encourage all operators and airmen to disclose and correct violations rather than sweep them under the rug and pretend they never happened.
So if the news stories I've seen are indeed factual, SWA did the right thing this time and may simply be admonished to improve their mx tracking procedures. I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
In FAA-land, self-disclosure of certain kinds of inadvertent rules violations, along with an acceptable correction plan often eliminates the imposition of sanctions against the airline for the violation. Of course this is better for them than "being caught" and the policy is intended to encourage all operators and airmen to disclose and correct violations rather than sweep them under the rug and pretend they never happened.
So if the news stories I've seen are indeed factual, SWA did the right thing this time and may simply be admonished to improve their mx tracking procedures. I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
Last edited by westhawk; 26th Feb 2015 at 04:47.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how this would have been viewed if it had been one of the ME3; plenty of accusations of authority help and collusion in giving them 5 days, I'm sure.
If the company has already been caught and fined for maintenance issues, then missing something as critical as this is cause for concern - how much else are they missing? If they're cutting corners on maintenance oversight and control, are they cutting corners on the work itself?
If the company has already been caught and fined for maintenance issues, then missing something as critical as this is cause for concern - how much else are they missing? If they're cutting corners on maintenance oversight and control, are they cutting corners on the work itself?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVERYONE has missed the important part. THE FAA didn't notice, so the FAA has shown itself behind the power curve in inspections, paperwork and otherwise.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human error
Maintaining a modern aircraft is a very complex task, it has to be constantly reviewed for updated procedures that arrive from manufactures, sub contractors and regulatory Authorites.
It is inevitable that human error can creep in and occasionally things get missed, if an airline misses an item it is far better they come clean and fix the problem than cover up the mistake, that way the error in the system gets exposed and procedures amended to correct the error and you can bet that publicity results in the six other airlines that have made the same error get to know they have made an error and so correct it.
Rather than slagging off SWA for making the error they should be congratulated for coming clean, and stopping the aircraft from flying to correct the issue.
It is inevitable that human error can creep in and occasionally things get missed, if an airline misses an item it is far better they come clean and fix the problem than cover up the mistake, that way the error in the system gets exposed and procedures amended to correct the error and you can bet that publicity results in the six other airlines that have made the same error get to know they have made an error and so correct it.
Rather than slagging off SWA for making the error they should be congratulated for coming clean, and stopping the aircraft from flying to correct the issue.
According to a Southwest line mechanic I know, they had all of the missed checks completed within ONE day. Apparently these rudder manual reversion system operational checks don't take very long for a mechanic to accomplish. It seems that while this glitch added somewhat to some of the line mechanics workload for one day, they got back to their normal business without delay. My acquaintance always seems happy to put in a couple of hours of OT for the company, but did express a desire for the mx planning dept improve it performance as necessary to prevent missed checks in the future.
The maintenance scheduling of such a large fleet is a dauntingly complex task that requires constant attention and scrutiny. The application of computerized data processing to real-time maintenance tracking and scheduling is only as reliable as the humans who design and implement the software and the humans who manage and monitor the automated mx tracking system performance and are responsible for the outcomes can make it. Could company management employees be subject to a similar over-reliance on automation that pilots sometimes appear to be?
It seems to me that in this case a required mx task didn't make it into the work assignment schedule for one reason ot another. The error was detected, reported and acted upon. The only thing left to do is find out why the error happened and correct the defective process. Since SWA probably don't like bad publicity, paying fines or possibly adding accident/incident risk in their operation, I would expect that they are working on how to prevent future similar occurrences. At least that's what I'd be doing if I was in the big chair...
The maintenance scheduling of such a large fleet is a dauntingly complex task that requires constant attention and scrutiny. The application of computerized data processing to real-time maintenance tracking and scheduling is only as reliable as the humans who design and implement the software and the humans who manage and monitor the automated mx tracking system performance and are responsible for the outcomes can make it. Could company management employees be subject to a similar over-reliance on automation that pilots sometimes appear to be?
It seems to me that in this case a required mx task didn't make it into the work assignment schedule for one reason ot another. The error was detected, reported and acted upon. The only thing left to do is find out why the error happened and correct the defective process. Since SWA probably don't like bad publicity, paying fines or possibly adding accident/incident risk in their operation, I would expect that they are working on how to prevent future similar occurrences. At least that's what I'd be doing if I was in the big chair...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<The maintenance scheduling of such a large fleet is a dauntingly complex task that requires constant attention and scrutiny.>>>
Excuse me, exactly what in aviation doesn't require constant attention and scrutiny?
Excuse me, exactly what in aviation doesn't require constant attention and scrutiny?
Excuse me, exactly what in aviation doesn't require constant attention and scrutiny?
[RANT mode=ON]
Some people seem to suffer under the misapprehension that it's just another routine task and don't seem too impressed with the amount of competence required to operate an aircraft or to keep it airworthy. It's a job for qualified and dedicated pros, yet many business managers don't want to think so. Or maybe devaluing the role of the aviation professional is just considered "good business"!
[/RANT mode]
In any case, this particular incident doesn't seem to be a good case study of willful negligence for people to rant on about. It might be an example of how a organizational error SHOULD be handled.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they're cutting corners on maintenance oversight and control, are they cutting corners on the work itself?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West hawk - those of us who have spent a working lifetime maintaining aircraft know that from time to time the required information regarding S.B.or A.D. compliance fails to reach those at the sharp end. How the screw up is rectified without making a big song and dance about it ( or dropping anyone in it)is the trick!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me, exactly what in aviation doesn't require constant attention and scrutiny?
The amount of ice remaining in the galley?
those of us who have spent a working lifetime maintaining aircraft know that from time to time the required information regarding S.B.or A.D. compliance fails to reach those at the sharp end.
Right you are sir! Have seen the same several times in my career as both a mechanic and pilot. How an organization goes about rectifying their errors reveals allot about them.
