LuvJockey

Bond - SWA isn't pointing the finger at anyone else - the point that I'm making is that Oberstar is planning on holding hearings into the FAA and their relationship with airlines. That isn't SWA's thing, it's Oberstar's, so I wouldn't be hoping for hearings if I worked for any airline.

Apparently from the info I've seen so far, SWA self disclosed the problem (nobody has come out yet to say if it was a clerical error that didn't properly document inspections that had actually occurred), and both the FAA and Boeing were satisfied with the inspections being accomplished over the next 10 days.

Even in high-profile incidences such as landing gear problems and exploding engines, airlines don't ground their fleets - they inspect them ASAP, but don't normally ground them. To say that the aircraft were unsafe is not accurate, but to say SWA screwed up is definitely true, particular in light of the bad PR that this has generated.

In addition, I wouldn't put too much faith into the journalism of any television network on matters of aviation. This entire thing has absolutely nothing to do with rudders.

LuvJockey

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.

Rex Kramer

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

The media's involved now, the real facts don't matter.

kalymnos

Im so happy the execs at LUV arent worried about the stock, it seems they have a pretty good handle on things in the past year........Im wondering if they see that the "business model" isnt just there's anymore...lots of sharks in the airline bus.

SmoothOnTop

From my limited experience of TV law shows:

Isn't Mr. Feith a paid expert witness?

Shouldn't he save this for the hearing?

exp96

Here is what SWA is sending via email to Rapid Rewards members


[B]Dear Rapid Rewards Member
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—and has maintained that same dedication for more than 37 years. It is and always has been our number one priority to ensure the Safety of every Southwest Customer and Employee. “We’ve got a 37-year history of very safe operations, one of the safest operations in the world, and we’re safer today than we’ve ever been,” said Southwest CEO Gary Kelly.

Receipt of the FAA letter of penalty gives us the chance to present the facts which we feel will support our actions taken in March 2007. The FAA penalty is related to one of many routine 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 has stated its support of Southwest's aggressive compliance plan. Southwest acted responsibly and the safety of the fleet was not compromised, Boeing said.

Former National Transportation Safety Board Inspector-in-Charge Greg Feith said after a review of the available data and information that it’s 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.

Southwest consistently maintains a Leadership role in developing maintenance programs for the Boeing 737 aircraft.

As always, we commit to keeping you informed. Please check southwest.com for periodic updates

fireman0174

Not meant to take a shot at anyone here, but that's the most factual statement of this thread.

milky

And sadly, if SWA is exonerated, it will never be reported. Retracting 3 days of "breaking headlines" is never good enough news to report.

Deez340

Wow!?!, just wow.

EagleDriver

LuvJockey, milky, (and those of you defending SW on this one),

You can spin it anyway you like but SW broke the law at least twice and violated the trust it's passengers AND CREWS placed in the company. SW will not be exonerated - read the FAA report.

The broke the law when they didn't comply with the AD within the timeframe mandated (60,000+ cycles) and they broke the law again after they discovered their first error yet continued to fly aircraft (1000+ cycles) before complying with the AD.

If I was a pilot or FA for SW I would be outraged that my pink body was put on an aircraft that wasn't in compliance with the airworthiness standards set up by the FAA. Some of you want to defend them for this. Unbelieveable!

If you want to sugar coat it and say "awh shucks, it wasn't that big of a deal, it's just some bitty ole cracks that shoulda been looked at", you're not very smart. The FAA airworthiness certification process was set up specifically to avoid this type of maintenence. The FAA, not individual operators, decides safety standards. That's why most AD's have dates associated with them. Some aren't much of a threat to safety and don't need to be complied with until the next heavy check. Some AD's are Emergency AD's and must be complied with immediately. This fell inbetween those extremes but regardless that AD was NOT complied with.

There is no defense for SW in this case. Pay the fine, fire the idiots who allowed this to occur and make sure it doesn't happen again.