Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes
According to CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06...rss_topstories
Being a SLF I leave the comments to the professionals.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06...rss_topstories
Being a SLF I leave the comments to the professionals.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe Defined
Definition of SAFE depend on who you are:
FAA Folks: "AD madated inspections/repairs done by due dates."
Persons on Board: "Airplane fixed before failure happens."
Sometimes they mean the same thing and sometimes they don't.
FAA Folks: "AD madated inspections/repairs done by due dates."
Persons on Board: "Airplane fixed before failure happens."
Sometimes they mean the same thing and sometimes they don't.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LAX
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cnn says: "The planes were "not airworthy," according to congressional air safety investigators."
This would leave me to believe an AD was not complied with? Unless of course cnn is taking some liberties in the use of the word "airworthy", and why would a news organization do that?
Then I read further down: "He said both FAA managers and the airline may also have broken the law..."
If it was an AD then it seems like there is no gray area, so the "may have" seems out of place. Could it have just been some SBs?
This would leave me to believe an AD was not complied with? Unless of course cnn is taking some liberties in the use of the word "airworthy", and why would a news organization do that?
Then I read further down: "He said both FAA managers and the airline may also have broken the law..."
If it was an AD then it seems like there is no gray area, so the "may have" seems out of place. Could it have just been some SBs?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA proposes record $10 mln fine for Southwest Air
More from Reuters:
FAA proposes record $10 mln fine for Southwest Air
"WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators on Thursday proposed a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines Co, 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 Co 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. This deliberate breach, the FAA said, prompted the stiff fine...."
FAA proposes record $10 mln fine for Southwest Air
"WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators on Thursday proposed a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines Co, 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 Co 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. This deliberate breach, the FAA said, prompted the stiff fine...."
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total 1400 frights of 46 airplanes, or an average of 30 each. At ten per day, that's three days per airplane for a structural inspection that's probably in the thousands of hours or cycles. BFD.
GB
GB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A Restless Spirit on an Endless Flight!
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised they would try to play games with inspections involving the rudder system. Had to be some sort of honest mistake? Why take the chance?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DogHouse
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to CNN
...and according to a senator.........
these "inspections" were 10+ years ago.................
not to mention they tried to play this to the media 2 weeks ago and it did not get anywhere...soooo now CNN "says" the planes could have come apart in midair...........I guess the Clemens story played out.......GMAFB
BTW...I fly in the things more than most...up front that is...safest airplanes and AIRLINE in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!
Media morons.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
Age: 39
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTFA:
"In 1994, a US Air Boeing 737 crashed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing 132 people. Three years earlier, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing 25 people. Investigators blamed both crashes on problems in the planes' rudder control system, leading the FAA to demand regular checks of the 737's rudder system."
Wow. Non sequitur much? Someone care to inform me WTH this has to do with the price of tea in Washington?
"In 1994, a US Air Boeing 737 crashed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing 132 people. Three years earlier, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing 25 people. Investigators blamed both crashes on problems in the planes' rudder control system, leading the FAA to demand regular checks of the 737's rudder system."
Wow. Non sequitur much? Someone care to inform me WTH this has to do with the price of tea in Washington?
Not sure just who "congressional air safety Investigators" are (per CNN), since Congress has no such organization. If it's the GAO, their "investigations" invariably "prove" whatever point the Congressman that initiated the investigation wanted proven.
Second, as a Congressman with a district just North of Minneapolis, Oberstar has every reason to go after any airline that isn't Northwest.
Flown Southwest before, will continue flying them.
Tom
Second, as a Congressman with a district just North of Minneapolis, Oberstar has every reason to go after any airline that isn't Northwest.
Flown Southwest before, will continue flying them.
Tom
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DogHouse
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tom...
BTW think you will be hearing a response from SWA AND Boeing shortly that shows SWA acted appropriately within the direction from Boeing.
Just another case of sensationalist terror journalism from CNN.
mAC
BTW think you will be hearing a response from SWA AND Boeing shortly that shows SWA acted appropriately within the direction from Boeing.
Just another case of sensationalist terror journalism from CNN.
mAC
MacDaddy
As a regular SLF on SWA I am quite comfortable with their maintenance/inspections regimes.
In fact more comfortable than on a few other financially struggling US flyers.
FlyNerd
As a regular SLF on SWA I am quite comfortable with their maintenance/inspections regimes.
In fact more comfortable than on a few other financially struggling US flyers.FlyNerd
Guest
Posts: n/a
skiingman
"In 1994, a US Air Boeing 737 crashed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing 132 people. Three years earlier, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing 25 people. Investigators blamed both crashes on problems in the planes' rudder control system, leading the FAA to demand regular checks of the 737's rudder system."
"In 1994, a US Air Boeing 737 crashed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing 132 people. Three years earlier, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing 25 people. Investigators blamed both crashes on problems in the planes' rudder control system, leading the FAA to demand regular checks of the 737's rudder system."
The checks in question were not even remotely related to the rudder PCU issue. They were about skin cracks, checks that became required after an Aloha 737 became the first ever cabriolet model in Boeing's line.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, people, read the article. It is really quite clear, and I don't see any reason to criticise either the journalists who wrote it or Congressman Oberstar and his committee.
Simply put, it is proposed that SW compromised the safety of its customers by not complying with important ADs. If indeed SW did not comply with those ADs, as Oberstar's committee will ascertain, then indeed the airline did compromise the safety of its customers. Whichever flag for whichever airline one prefers to wave, I cannot see that that is acceptable.
"Congressional air safety investigators" refers to Oberstar and his committee, and the associated staff. They are in Congress; they are investigating; and this is about air safety. What part of that is not clear?
I am not as sanguine about fatigue cracking and rudder inspections on FLUFs as some. Those ADs are there for good reasons. According to the article, SW continued operating 46 aircraft after expiry of the deadline for inspecting for fatigue cracks, and when those aircraft were later inspected, 6 of them were found to have fuselage fatigue cracks. That is what the AD is for, to catch these things before the aircraft breaks up. It is not just another piece of paper that someone has to sign off. The rudder AD is also important, for similar reasons.
For those who, astonishingly, do not know what "airworthy" means: an airplane that does not comply with an AD (indeed with all applicable ADs) is technically unairworthy: its airworthiness certificate is invalid and you require special individual FAA approval for each and every flight you undertake. It is, apparently, a fact that SW was flying 46 unairworthy airplanes without that approval, and with passengers on them (which normally would not be allowed under such approval), for some six months. Oberstar is absolutely correct in noting that that is against the law.
How did this happen? Allegedly for commercial reasons, with the indulgence of SW's overseer at the FAA. Apparently other FAA officials do not approve; two of them gave the incriminating documents to the House committee and are applying for whistleblower status; the former overseer no longer has that position; and Sabatini has said clearly that the FAA expects compliance with its directives (of course!)
Others can do what they want, but I certainly do not want to fly on any FLUFs that are not up with their ADs on fatigue crack inspections and rudder inspections. I don't want them to open up like a sardine can on me, or split-S into the farmyard. And I have confidence that they won't, if and only if the ADs have been complied with.
PBL
Simply put, it is proposed that SW compromised the safety of its customers by not complying with important ADs. If indeed SW did not comply with those ADs, as Oberstar's committee will ascertain, then indeed the airline did compromise the safety of its customers. Whichever flag for whichever airline one prefers to wave, I cannot see that that is acceptable.
"Congressional air safety investigators" refers to Oberstar and his committee, and the associated staff. They are in Congress; they are investigating; and this is about air safety. What part of that is not clear?
I am not as sanguine about fatigue cracking and rudder inspections on FLUFs as some. Those ADs are there for good reasons. According to the article, SW continued operating 46 aircraft after expiry of the deadline for inspecting for fatigue cracks, and when those aircraft were later inspected, 6 of them were found to have fuselage fatigue cracks. That is what the AD is for, to catch these things before the aircraft breaks up. It is not just another piece of paper that someone has to sign off. The rudder AD is also important, for similar reasons.
For those who, astonishingly, do not know what "airworthy" means: an airplane that does not comply with an AD (indeed with all applicable ADs) is technically unairworthy: its airworthiness certificate is invalid and you require special individual FAA approval for each and every flight you undertake. It is, apparently, a fact that SW was flying 46 unairworthy airplanes without that approval, and with passengers on them (which normally would not be allowed under such approval), for some six months. Oberstar is absolutely correct in noting that that is against the law.
How did this happen? Allegedly for commercial reasons, with the indulgence of SW's overseer at the FAA. Apparently other FAA officials do not approve; two of them gave the incriminating documents to the House committee and are applying for whistleblower status; the former overseer no longer has that position; and Sabatini has said clearly that the FAA expects compliance with its directives (of course!)
Others can do what they want, but I certainly do not want to fly on any FLUFs that are not up with their ADs on fatigue crack inspections and rudder inspections. I don't want them to open up like a sardine can on me, or split-S into the farmyard. And I have confidence that they won't, if and only if the ADs have been complied with.
PBL
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective of the journo spin, the fact is that the carrier was fined, so obviously there were some maintenance shortcomings and lack of compliance with Airworthiness Directives.
Southwest is known the world over as a carrier that has been turning consistent yearly profits, so the journos as well as the travelling public may have been dumbfounded to learn why SWA managers would curtail labor intensive maintenance checks. . . to make more profit?
Historically, paying a fine has not been a sufficient remedy for cutting corners on required airplane maintenance. Therefore, senior airline managers and directors should be sent to jail. It's the only way to send a meaningful warning to the industry's CEOs and shareholders [owners] worldwide.
Southwest is known the world over as a carrier that has been turning consistent yearly profits, so the journos as well as the travelling public may have been dumbfounded to learn why SWA managers would curtail labor intensive maintenance checks. . . to make more profit?
Historically, paying a fine has not been a sufficient remedy for cutting corners on required airplane maintenance. Therefore, senior airline managers and directors should be sent to jail. It's the only way to send a meaningful warning to the industry's CEOs and shareholders [owners] worldwide.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LAX
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the spin but send the CEO to jail anyway? Why don't we just start arresting crew members for the myriad of onboard FAA violations involving cell phones & oversized carry-on bags?
The traveling public will hold the CEO accountable by flying on other airlines. And hopefully our prison cells are being reserved for the corrupt FAA supervisors that allow airlines to jeopardize our safety.
Obviously an open & shut case for the government. But could it also mean that these "cozy relationships" exist between the government and other airlines?
The traveling public will hold the CEO accountable by flying on other airlines. And hopefully our prison cells are being reserved for the corrupt FAA supervisors that allow airlines to jeopardize our safety.
Obviously an open & shut case for the government. But could it also mean that these "cozy relationships" exist between the government and other airlines?