If anyone is interested in the real facts of the matter, you can read the FAA letter here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...westletter.pdf

Here's another letter released by SWA to explain what you're reading:

DALLAS, March 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The following is a statement
by Gregory A. Feith:

I was requested by Southwest Airlines (SWA) to review and assess the
potential safety of flight risk that could have resulted from the continued
in-service operation of 46 of their Classic 737 airplanes in March 2007 as
they progressively inspected a small area (under 0.6%) of the fuselage skin
as required by FAA Airworthiness Directive 2004-18-06. The assessment
involved the review of technical documents associated with both mandatory
and non-mandatory inspections, pertinent service/maintenance history for
the 46 airplanes, a technical briefing by the Southwest Airlines
Engineering Department and technical data/analysis provided by Boeing (the
airplane manufacturer) related to structural integrity of fuselage skin
cracks that were found on five of the 46 SWA airplanes. The scope of the
assessment was confined to the safety of flight issues only.

Based on the information I have reviewed, it is apparent that on March
15, 2007, SWA initiated re-inspection of the affected airplanes to
accomplish the inadvertently missed portion of FAA Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 2004-18-06. A review of the historical information that led to the
issuance of the AD indicates that a progressive inspection for fuselage
skin cracking was initially distributed to operators in the form of a
"non-mandatory" Service Bulletin (SB) that provided "risk mitigation"
actions that operators were encouraged to incorporate into their
maintenance program. This Service Bulletin was based, in large part, on an
inspection program developed by Southwest Airlines. The issuance of the AD
was a continued effort to ensure that cracks in the fuselage skin on the
Boeing 737 airplanes were identified and mitigated well before they could
pose a safety of flight issue. It is evident from the 4500 hour initial
inspection requirement (regardless of aircraft age (i.e. flight cycles))
that the FAA did not regard the skin cracking as an "immediate threat" to
the safety of flight of the airplane. Thus, the FAA Airworthiness Directive
permitted aircraft to remain in-service for approximately 1 1/2 years,
until a normally scheduled heavy maintenance visit occurred, before the
first inspection was required.

In addition, it is evident from the analysis and testing data developed
by Boeing that cracks up to 6 inches in the fuselage skin do not compromise
the structural integrity or pose a safety of flight issue. This is further
supported by the design of the fuselage structure which incorporates
"internal reinforcing doublers in the skin assembly" and "tearstraps," both
of which are intended to provide strength, and slow or abate the growth
rate of a crack under normal operating aerodynamic loads.

Based on the available data and information reviewed, it is apparent
that there was no risk to the flying public in March 2007 while Southwest
Airlines performed their program to re-inspect the small area of aircraft
fuselages identified in the AD inspection that was inadvertently missed.



Gregory A. Feith
International Aviation Safety & Security Consultant

Mr. Feith is a former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
Senior Air Safety Investigator with a wide range of aviation investigative,
safety and experience. He has investigated hundreds of general aviation,
business/corporate and air transport aircraft incidents and accidents
worldwide during his 28 years as an aircraft accident investigator and
aviation safety expert, of which more than 20 years was with the NTSB. Greg
served as the Investigator-in-Charge or U.S. Accredited Representative for
the investigation of numerous high profile aircraft accidents that include
the Valujet DC-9 in-flight fire in the Florida Everglades in 1996; the
American Eagle ATR 72 in-flight icing accident at Roselawn, Indiana in
1994; the USAir DC-9 windshear accident at Charlotte in 1994; the Korean
Air 747-300 controlled flight into terrain at Guam in 1997; the American
Airlines MD-83 runway overrun at Little Rock in 1999; the Emery Worldwide
Airlines DC-8 elevator control failure at Sacramento in 2000; the Swiss Air
MD-11 in Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia in 1998; and the Silk Air Boeing 737 in
Palembang, Sumatra in 1997.

Greg has won numerous NTSB and aviation industry awards and was the
recipient of an Aviation Week and Space Technology Laurel Award in 1996 for
his leadership in the investigation of the Valujet DC-9 in-flight fire
accident in the Florida Everglades. He also received the 2001 Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University Distinguished Alumni Award for "extraordinary
distinction and success in the field of aviation and achievements;" and the
SAFE Association, Michael R. Grost Award for "outstanding contribution in
the field of accident investigation."


To me, what all of this means is that SWA screwed up it's implementation of a new maintenance schedule, disclosed it, an FAA inspector wasn't happy that he didn't get to levy a fine, then gave the info to a congressman. Congressman is chairman of committee that controls FAA funding, FAA reacts to complaints by congressman. Finally, let's face it: Most pilots are too uninterested to read the above info enough to understand it, much less the general public. CNN gets to story and even claims rudders haven't been inspected, ties it to a totally unrelated area of the fuselage, calls it the worst safety violation in aviation history, and even some qualified pilots on this board believe it immediately by stating SWA has been "pencil whipping" inspections, taking risks with the safety of its passengers and crews. SWA has already lost the battle, at least from the PR standpoint. That may or may not make you happy depending on your view of SWA, but it is definitely a negative for the industry because Congressman Oberstar is already looking for more airline self-disclosure info from the FAA on other companies. Prepare to be made into a political punching bag complete with media hype.