Jump to content

Southwest Airlines


editor

Recommended Posts

Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

Quote
Discount air carrier Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft that federal inspectors said were "unsafe" as recently as last March, according to detailed congressional documents obtained by CNN.

Congressional documents show Southwest flew thousands of passengers on aircraft deemed "unsafe" by inspectors.

...

The planes were "not airworthy," according to congressional air safety investigators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've flown Southwest many times.. and I'm still around to talk about it! *Gasp!* :o

So.. the safety issue seems to be that inspections weren't done.. not that they found damaged/compromised airplanes..

"The result of inspection failures, and enforcement failure, has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, unairworthy, and at risk of lives," Oberstar told CNN.

This does not necessarily equate an unsafe airplane.. If they do indeed do inspections that they didn't do, and find something wrong, then I'll be the first one to throw a stone..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I encourage you to read this thread at Airliners.net to get a more accurate picture of what's going on. The media likes to oversensationalize things, especially when it comes to aviation and can't really be trusted to deliver accurate info. Aviation industry insiders and workers post there, so you're getting it straight.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/gener...d.main/3875631/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The airplanes become "not airworthy" the day they go past their annual inspection without receiving it. It is not an indication of the safety of the aircraft to fly. It is an indication that SWA did not comply with its mandated inspection regimen. Whether that is an indication of the airline's approach to safety, per se, is debatable. Airliners' self-imposed maintenance regimens far exceed the requirements of the FAA. It's a matter of protecting their investment in multi-million-dollar aircraft and avoiding legal actions resulting from dead passengers. In other words, it's just good business.

Of course, FAA compliance is also good business. Without it, they can't fly.

Most planes in SWA's fleet are 15 years old or older and undergo the stresses of pressurization much more often than most carriers because their flights are relatively short. So, the FAA's inspections are probably more pertinent to SWA than to others and I would feel better if they stuck to their obligation to have their planes inspected. However, an oversight like this does not make me question their safety, so long as it does not become practice.

I think this is a case of the media not understanding the definition of "not airworthy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's no comfort. Without inspections there's no way to tell how safe or unsafe the planes are.

Agreed, and being lax with the FAA is never a good thing. However, the idea that SWA was flying planes that were "not airworthy" was the issue. By definition, that was true. By evaluation of the planes -- albeit in absence of said evaluation -- that wasn't the case...yet.

Keep in mind that the FAA doesn't inspect planes. Airframe and Engine inspectors inspect the planes -- just like the hundreds of ones SWA has on staff maintaining the fleet every day. The absence of an official inspection is not an indication of a plane not receiving maintenance to keep it airworthy. In fact, much, if not all of this could be a simple bookkeeping error, which in itself is still a violation, but not an indication the airplanes were unsafe, just that they were not airworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've flown Southwest many times.. and I'm still around to talk about it! *Gasp!* :o

So.. the safety issue seems to be that inspections weren't done.. not that they found damaged/compromised airplanes..

This does not necessarily equate an unsafe airplane.. If they do indeed do inspections that they didn't do, and find something wrong, then I'll be the first one to throw a stone..

They did find something wrong.

In a news release Thursday afternoon, the FAA said Southwest operated 46 Boeing 737s on nearly 60,000 flights between June 2006 and March 2007 while failing to comply with an FAA directive that requires repeated checks of fuselage areas to detect fatigue cracking.

The FAA alleges that after Southwest discovered it had failed to comply, it continued to operate the same planes on an additional 1,451 flights. The airline later found that six of the 46 planes had fatigue cracks, the FAA said.

...and you could have ended up in the convertible version of the 737:

localnews1.jpg

I encourage you to read this thread at Airliners.net to get a more accurate picture of what's going on. The media likes to oversensationalize things, especially when it comes to aviation and can't really be trusted to deliver accurate info. Aviation industry insiders and workers post there, so you're getting it straight.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/gener...d.main/3875631/

=) I love "air whiners".net... Rumor mill more than anything, in my view. Entertaining to read though...

Agreed, and being lax with the FAA is never a good thing. However, the idea that SWA was flying planes that were "not airworthy" was the issue. By definition, that was true. By evaluation of the planes -- albeit in absence of said evaluation -- that wasn't the case...yet.

Keep in mind that the FAA doesn't inspect planes. Airframe and Engine inspectors inspect the planes -- just like the hundreds of ones SWA has on staff maintaining the fleet every day. The absence of an official inspection is not an indication of a plane not receiving maintenance to keep it airworthy. In fact, much, if not all of this could be a simple bookkeeping error, which in itself is still a violation, but not an indication the airplanes were unsafe, just that they were not airworthy.

An aircraft that is not airworthy is not safe, by definition, and per FAA regulations cannot take to the air. Period. Kinda like being only half pregnant... you either are or you are not. There is no gray area. They got caught with their pants down, fair and square. They are my #1 airline though, eating everybody else's lunch. Too bad they were risking our lives though.

Edited by BryanS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aircraft that is not airworthy is not safe, by definition, and per FAA regulations cannot take to the air. Period.

No, an aircraft that is deemed not airworthy cannot LEGALLY take to the air, but is not necessarily unsafe. That's the only point I was making. Plenty of planes out there are out of annual inspection and not flying, but are perfectly safe.

I was not trying to condone SWA's shoddy maintenance record keeping. I was merely trying to temper what I believe was a reporter's misunderstanding of a definition.

Airplanes receive airworthiness certificates that DO NOT EXPIRE, with the provision that they are inspected regularly. The day after the last day of the month of its inspection, if the plane hasn't passed the inspection, it is no longer airworthy, or legal to fly. The safety of the plane to fly is not determined, absent that inspection.

Most likely this was a bookkeeping oversight, as there is nothing to gain by cutting corners with your FAA inspections. They'd either get caught in the following year's inspection, or when a part failed and they were sued after a crash, causing them to have to go out of business. Even if they just wanted to modify or update the planes in the next few months, they'd have to go to the log books with an inspector present, who would catch that the planes were out of inspection and be unable to do the work until they were brought up to speed. This would render their multi-million dollar aircraft useless.

They were not "caught with their pants down" trying to get around the FAA. They probably made an error in their airframe logs and missed pulling the planes in question out of service for their inspections. Yes, it was wrong. But, I still contend that the amount of maintenance attention an SWA plane receives just as a matter of course in protecting their $millions invested in their fleet is far greater than their obligatory FAA inspection would render.

In other words, if the plane surpassed its inspection date on August 31, 2007, it is highly unlikely that it was any less safe to fly on September 1, 2007 than it was on August 30, 2007. It's a matter of definitions and the FAA plays strictly by the book -- as they should.

Edited by ssullivan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, an aircraft that is deemed not airworthy cannot LEGALLY take to the air, but is not necessarily unsafe. That's the only point I was making. Plenty of planes out there are out of annual inspection and not flying, but are perfectly safe.

You can't know this for sure. You cannot, under any circumstances, determine or otherwise bless an aircraft's airworthiness - the ability to fly the plane safely - without inspecting it, on a regular interval, because you don't know what could be wrong with it. Once you get out of balance on your inspections (flying with known, dangerous defects, or not having performed the necessary inspections per a mandatory inspection schedule, etc.), such aircraft should be deemed perfectly unsafe and kept on the ground until proven otherwise. Else, you're gambling with people's lives.

This wasn't a case of flying planes just one or two days past a safety inspection deadline. They had inspected some aircraft, found cracks - which should have kept those aircraft on the ground - but kept flying them anyway. Southwest knew it. The FAA knew it. It was wrong, but they did it anyway... and Southwest (and the now-demoted FAA supervisior/managment) got caught, with their pants down, in front of the general public. Southwest put their own profit motives ahead of the safety of their passengers, which I find tragic, because I like them so much.

EDIT: The above (second paragraph) is slightly incorrect. They found the cracks when they eventually got around to inspecting the planes. They did not appear to knowingly fly with those defects. Both Southwest and the FAA knew Southwest was flying the planes "hot." The end result is still the same: they put profits ahead of safety because they did not know, for sure, if the planes had any problems or not.

Edited by BryanS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree almost completely. In your edit, you seem to come around to my point. SWA did not put their profits ahead of safety as you describe, because they CANNOT do so as you describe. Ultimately, breaking the cycle of inspections on those airplanes would render them useless. They could not perform repairs or upgrades without signoffs on their logs. Their entire staff of mechanics in airfields across the country would have to be in on the scam and be willing to put their certifications on the line every time they serviced the plane. This is not to mention the independent mechanics who serviced the plane.

This seems like a clerical error that was caught and SWA volunteered the info to protect their standing with the FAA. The FAA only ALLEGES purposeful wrongdoing. But you make it seem like SWA had some motive in passing on inspections to save money. It would cost them millions in ultimate loss of aircraft flying time because repairs couldn't be completed without current ADs and inspection compliance when a plane broke -- which happens very frequently. It would put them out of business if a part failed and the plane crashed. It's too easy to check the logs and see what the maintenance history is.

To imply they knowingly tried to get around FAA inspections is ludicrous. They screwed up, missed a date, closed the wrong books or something. It wasn't an effort to deceive. That just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur. We do almost agree.

I still contend they were putting profits first, ahead of safety, however. Because when they found the discrepancy in their logs, they disclosed it to the FAA (which was good). At that point, the FAA should have grounded the aircraft and forced Southwest to get caught up with their inspections, or otherwise trace down the error in their log books. Instead, Southwest was permitted to keep flying those aircraft (after their sob story of how it would hurt their operations/profits)... and then when they finally got around to doing the inspections, they found troubling defects, in six aircraft. Had the process worked as intended, the flying public would have not been exposed to such risk, on those particular planes. Just goes to show that sometime the airlines and the FAA are a little too comfortable with each other, from time to time.

EDIT: And actually... when Southwest found the discrepancies and reported it, they should have said, "we found an error, we've pulled the planes from service and are looking into the situation now (and will track down the error in our books, or inspect the planes now)" vs... "we'll get to it later, we need to make money right now." The FAA should have put a check on the later case: "I don't care if you want to make money; people need to fly on safe aircraft - inspect them now." I place the blame equally on the FAA and Southwest in this case. Where is Mary Schiavo when you need her?

Edited by BryanS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA doesn't ground individual airplanes. They can ground an aircraft type for investigation into a crash, but when it comes to enforcement against individuals or companies, they can levy fines, suspend or pull certificates and that's about it. It's up to SWA to self-impose grounding and to self-police inspection regimens in order to stay in compliance.

And there's the issue. The FAA did not "permit" SWA to fly those airplanes without inspections. Whether SWA did so KNOWINGLY or not is exactly the question.

The ADs involved might have been two- or three-year inspections, not part of the annual. We don't know. So, if the inspection was a 36-month AD and the records mistakenly showed the planes had been inspected, that might explain how a plane could go 30 months out of date before it was caught.

SWAs entire fleet is 737s. They'd have no reason to make exceptions in their regimen for these few aircraft. Seems like an error, to me. It doesn't make it right, but it might shed some light on an honest mistake that's being portrayed as sinister by a reporter who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "airworthy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I encourage you to read this thread at Airliners.net to get a more accurate picture of what's going on. The media likes to oversensationalize things, especially when it comes to aviation and can't really be trusted to deliver accurate info. Aviation industry insiders and workers post there, so you're getting it straight.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/gener...d.main/3875631/

I love airliners.net. It's one of the best sites on the internet. But your link doesn't back your claim that anything is being "sensationalized" or that we can get a "more accurate picture of what's going on." The thread on Airliners doesn't contradict anything in the CNN or Wall Street Journal articles. In fact, some of the posts quote the FAA findings and make it sound worse than that was reported. All the thread you linked to does is attack the messenger, not the message.

The fact that the Airliners thread is populated by "aviation industry insiders" doesn't mean the information is always more accurate. It often means they have more of an incentive to spin what is being said. An example from the thread is the statement from the Southwest Airlines rep saying that the problems were "promptly" dealt with, but then another member calls him out because "promptly" was 80 cycles later for some of the jets.

If you have some facts to dispute the WSJ article, let's hear them. Otherwise how are we to know that you can "really be trusted to delivery accurate info." It wasn't CNN or the Wall Street Journal who decided the aircraft were unsafe. That was FAA inspectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question that non-compliance with an AD is a serious matter for an airline and the FAA has zero tolerance for it. I do think "intent" should play a role in assigning punishment, however. That said, would you rather fly a dishonest airline, or a negligent one?

I honestly don't think SWA is either, but do not wish to be an apologist for them. I don't really even particularly like them.

When I first read the story, it seemed as if the reporter was trying to chum the water with the word "unsafe" and to depict the scenario as the airline being dishonest. While that may actually be the case, it is not clear at this point. The reporting seemed a bit naive. Plus, it was provoking responses like "they put profits ahead of passenger safety" which is unfair without knowing the full story.

Like I said -- it may be the case, but if you really look at it, it seems like a real oversimplification of the situation and one that would not benefit the airline in the long run. They'd be crazy to do this. It would cost them millions in regard to their fleet over time and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO GET AWAY WITH IT. Anybody with any knowledge of how the FAA works would know this. That's why they self-reported.

Pilots do the same thing. FAA regulations are complicated and constantly changing. Pilots violate them all the time. There is a self-reporting Web site for describing your infraction when you do. If your infraction generates an investigation, you are generally let off easy if you self-reported. The goal is safety, not punishment. The system wants to create an atmosphere where a company like SWA will self-report, knowing it may cost them millions, in order to stay safe. It's worked very well for many years and is an effective check against unreasonable power imposed by the FAA and unsafe practices by the aviation community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think this thing has been blown out of proportion. Did Southwest mess up and miss inspections on some planes? Yes. Did they promptly notify the FAA of the oversight and take measures to get the inspections done and fix any problems found? Yes. Mistakes happen -- and every airline has them from time to time. Would this make me not fly Southwest? No way. The fact is that those planes were still undergoing regular maintenance and inspection -- what was missed as a federal inspection that's required on a certain schedule. This is very similar to me maintaining my car very well, but forgetting to go get the state's safety inspection done until after the sticker on my windshield has expired. It doesn't mean my car is unsafe, but it does mean that it's not legal to drive until I get the inspection done.

If anything, after this, Southwest is probably a safer airline to fly. You can be assured after this thing has hit the media like it has (almost a year after the missed inspections were discovered and dealt with), and with the pending government fines, Southwest will take action to ensure this doesn't happen again.

By the way, here's the e-mail that went out to Southwest's frequent fliers last night in response to the news reports.

Southwest Airlines: We take Safety Seriously

You may have heard that Southwest Airlines was fined by the FAA regarding recent aircraft inspections. First and foremost, we want to assure you this was never and is not a safety of flight issue.

From our inception, Southwest Airlines has maintained a rigorous Culture of Safety

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, we want to assure you this was never and is not a safety of flight issue.

Six cracked jets in the air isn't a safety issue? Well, I guess if Southwest says so. Spin, spin, spin.

FWIW, I've only flown Southwest twice. I had once good experience, and one bad experience. 50% is still better than United in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six cracked jets in the air isn't a safety issue? Well, I guess if Southwest says so. Spin, spin, spin.

FWIW, I've only flown Southwest twice. I had once good experience, and one bad experience. 50% is still better than United in my book.

Well technically not considering that the cracks that were found were not yet to a degree where they would have been a problem.

The truth of the matter is that fatigue cracks are a natural occurrence that happens with time on older aircraft. The point of the inspections is to find them early on so they can be repaired long before they would be a serious threat. Granted the inspections were missed in this case. But just because cracks were found on six aircraft once the inspections were completed does not mean that any of those six aircraft were in imminent danger of having an accident. Those cracks would have been found had the planes been inspected on time, so either way, those six planes would have been flying at some point with the cracks. It's just that they flew longer than they would have had the inspections been done on time.

Like it or not, odds are anyone who has flown much has probably been on a plane with at least one fatigue crack.

Almost anything is better than United.

That is quite true. And I just bought another ticket on them for later this month. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have some facts to dispute the WSJ article, let's hear them. Otherwise how are we to know that you can "really be trusted to delivery accurate info." It wasn't CNN or the Wall Street Journal who decided the aircraft were unsafe. That was FAA inspectors.

I never said that "I" was delivering "accurate info". What I'm saying is news sources like to oversensationalize news stories and not give the whole report. When it comes to aviation, you can't really trust the news to get it right all the time. Too many times I've heard something like "The aircraft involved was an Airbus L-1011 Super 80 Series". You tell some average person there's a crack in the fuselage of a plane and they'll go crazy. The latest articles state that the FAA allows a crack to be up to 6 in in length before action should be taken to repair it on the Classic 737s. There were cracks found, but no report of the length of the cracks were given. So in that case, this should be reported as a case of "potentially unsafe" aircraft instead of the "deathtrap" picture the media is painting without all the facts being known. For all we know, the cracks may have been well within the threshold.

Here's one of the latest articles on the matter. Caution though, as it was written by a former NTSB Investigator on behalf of SWA, so don't be surprised if it's biased.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnewswi...08/03/07/LAF070

Edited by JLWM8609
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is news sources like to oversensationalize news stories and not give the whole report.

I don't see where there was sensationalization. The "unsafe" word wasn't invented by CNN of the WSJ. These days people like to generalize anything that comes from a news organization as sensationalized, even if it isn't; especially if they have a contradictory interest in the story. Journalism, by definition, can never give the whole report. That's what the original report is for. News sources exist to summarize and deliver what they can in an expedient manner. The only way for the Journal to "give the whole report" would be to print the whole report. That's not journalism, that's photocopying.

When it comes to aviation, you can't really trust the news to get it right all the time.

Another generalization. I still haven't seen it pointed out where the news item was wrong.

Too many times I've heard something like "The aircraft involved was an Airbus L-1011 Super 80 Series". You tell some average person there's a crack in the fuselage of a plane and they'll go crazy. The latest articles state that the FAA allows a crack to be up to 6 in in length before action should be taken to repair it on the Classic 737s. There were cracks found, but no report of the length of the cracks were given. So in that case, this should be reported as a case of "potentially unsafe" aircraft instead of the "deathtrap" picture the media is painting without all the facts being known. For all we know, the cracks may have been well within the threshold.

No one wrote "deathtrap" except you. You are putting words in the articles that aren't there. "Unsafe" was in quotation marks because it's what was said. "Potentially unsafe" wasn't said. That would be a fabrication. The kind you accuse "the media" of.

Here's one of the latest articles on the matter. Caution though, as it was written by a former NTSB Investigator on behalf of SWA, so don't be surprised if it's biased.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnewswi...08/03/07/LAF070

It's not an article, it's a press release. That's the problem with schools today -- they don't teach people critical thinking. I remember as a kid we had endless drills on fact versus opinion. People these days don't know the difference between the evening news and Maury Povitch. Between a newspaper article and damage control from an airline's PR company. I've actually heard people refer to what they saw on the Jerry Springer show as "the news" and talk about events they saw on the evening new as being "advertised" on the news. They don't even have the critical thinking ability or the vocabulary to know that a report about a car crash or a house fire is not an advertisement.

Sorry... I'm not trying to pick on you specifically. It's one of my pet peeves when people blame "the media" for imagined transgressions. In my experience, blaming the media is usually much easier than thinking.

I'll get off my soap box now. I don't want to run this thread any further off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't see a hole in the plane, it doesn't exist, right?

Actually, if these new allegations hold up, it crosses the line into the scenario I portrayed as crazy for Southwest to attempt, because there was no way to get away with it. And thus, they got caught.

I can only assume the person(s) who made the decision to keep flying the planes after they were found to be in violation of the ADs had little experience dealing with the FAA and thought it really wasn't that big of a deal. It was a very big deal. Nobody familiar with FAA regs or how that agency deals with non-compliance would take such a risk. This is the kind of thing that could cost them their brand name, once it's all done.

I'm just a lowly private pilot. I invested $6000-$7000 into obtaining my certificate and hate to think of giving the FAA a reason to take it away. Can you imagine what kind of idiocy it takes for SWA to risk the $billions in their operation over something like this? Even if they're just held to the $10 million, or a portion thereof, that's a serious case of stupidity.

I've gotten up in the air and realized I had forgotten to set my transponder to "altitude," which allows ATC to know my altitude on their radar screens. Though this is a very common occurrence, I was so afraid of an FAA call that I self-reported the incident. After doing a little reading on the subject, it turns out that this has happened so often that modern radar has been updated to handle the quirks of transponders' old technology, so there's really not a reason to turn them off of "altitude" in the vast majority of cases, as we're all instructed to do on the ground. It's safer just to leave it on and that is now the prevailing opinion. Well, my reporting, and that of thousands of others is leading to this safety measure becoming common practice. I've flown with my transponder properly set since.

That's how the system's supposed to work.

Edited by dalparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just a lowly private pilot. I invested $6000-$7000 into obtaining my certificate and hate to think of giving the FAA a reason to take it away. Can you imagine what kind of idiocy it takes for SWA to risk the $billions in their operation over something like this? Even if they're just held to the $10 million, or a portion thereof, that's a serious case of stupidity.

As we all learned in flight school it's the "Human Factor". The relationship between man and machine in flight also translates to back office operations.

A&Ps "are only human".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all learned in flight school it's the "Human Factor". The relationship between man and machine in flight also translates to back office operations.

A&Ps "are only human".

Agreed, but A&Ps, not actually the FAA, are the the public's only line of defense in this instance. They put their certification on the line when they sign off an inspection. the FAA regulations depend on them to be enforced. In my mind, they're held to an incredibly high standard. Still human, but high.

The more of this story that comes out, the more I'm swayed to the idea that someone's being dishonest here.

Edited by dalparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if these new allegations hold up, it crosses the line into the scenario I portrayed as crazy for Southwest to attempt, because there was no way to get away with it. And thus, they got caught.

I can only assume the person(s) who made the decision to keep flying the planes after they were found to be in violation of the ADs had little experience dealing with the FAA and thought it really wasn't that big of a deal. It was a very big deal. Nobody familiar with FAA regs or how that agency deals with non-compliance would take such a risk. This is the kind of thing that could cost them their brand name, once it's all done.

I'm just a lowly private pilot. I invested $6000-$7000 into obtaining my certificate and hate to think of giving the FAA a reason to take it away. Can you imagine what kind of idiocy it takes for SWA to risk the $billions in their operation over something like this? Even if they're just held to the $10 million, or a portion thereof, that's a serious case of stupidity.

I've gotten up in the air and realized I had forgotten to set my transponder to "altitude," which allows ATC to know my altitude on their radar screens. Though this is a very common occurrence, I was so afraid of an FAA call that I self-reported the incident. After doing a little reading on the subject, it turns out that this has happened so often that modern radar has been updated to handle the quirks of transponders' old technology, so there's really not a reason to turn them off of "altitude" in the vast majority of cases, as we're all instructed to do on the ground. It's safer just to leave it on and that is now the prevailing opinion. Well, my reporting, and that of thousands of others is leading to this safety measure becoming common practice. I've flown with my transponder properly set since.

That's how the system's supposed to work.

The FAA and Southwest, are both to blame, in my view:

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which investigates whistle-blower complaints, reported allegations in December that Southwest's regulatory official "falsely stated" and an FAA supervisor "falsely accepted" the airline's statement.

Hence, the FAA supervisor was fired, Southwest fined. Southwest should have stopped flying the aircraft. And the FAA did have the authority to stop them, had the FAA done its job:

According to one of the whistle-blowers, Mr. Gawadzinski stopped being strict with Southwest after a former FAA colleague, Paul Comeau, joined the airline. Previously, the whistle-blower said, the FAA had forced jets needing inspections to stop flying.

I am also a private pilot (though I have not flown in years and years). Even airworthy aircraft crash. Part of the recovery and healing, is to investigate root cause and change safety processes/inspections to mitigate future disasters, as required. It is one thing to lose an aircraft to an unknown problem, but to fail to inspect (and keep flying) aircraft that you know could have a specific, known problem is just pure negligence. Giving them a pass for an honest, simple oversight (or inexperience) is not enough, because the end result could be that people die for those "honest" mistakes by inexperienced employees. It appears, that at least in this case, had people died, it would have been due to fraud, on the part of Southwest and the FAA.

Also, I don't believe that an industry, where safety is so critical, can effectively self-regulate (what happened here is an obvious example). We need very strong safety standards and a very strong and independent government organization (or an organization with no profit motives) with real teeth to enforce those standards to keep the flying public safe. That is the way it should work. It is one thing to self report minor infractions, but quite another to disregard/ignore potential problems, in flagrant violation of rules, that could result in the sudden, assured, and violent destruction of aircraft where everybody dies.

These people were just lucky (Aloha 243):

mattaustin.jpg

...or at least most of them were. 5 of 95 died. Still too many, in my view.

EDIT: Put in a different picture/graphic from http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan...localnews1.html.

Edited by BryanS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the record, I never suggested "giving SWA a pass" if it was an oversight. I did suggest that judging them in the media and amongst our Internet forum, before the facts were in was unfair.

That said, I don't understand the language "falsely accepted".

I do understand the Dallas paper's report to say that SWA flew aircraft they knew were in violation of the ADs listed. That's bad.

Had it been an oversight and they had caught the error and self-reported -- okay, fine them an amount to send a message that sticks. The fact that they are now being shown to be dishonest and reckless with people's lives tells me they can't be trusted to self-regulate. If the FAA lacks the teeth to do some serious punitive damage to SWA, perhaps this bad PR will do the job.

I can't believe they'd be so stupid to do something like this. It's just as I said earlier -- sooner or later, a mechanic or someone with an FAA certification was going to realize that this company policy was putting his hard-earned and expensive certificate in jeopardy and blow the whistle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...