EagleDriver

I'm a pilot with an ATP as well as a certified FAA mechanic. Here's some information about AD's that may be useful. Compliance with an AD is MANDATORY or the aircraft is by definition unairworthy.


An Airworthiness Directive (commonly abbreviated as AD) is a notification to aircraft owner and operator of a known safety deficiency with a particular model of aircraft, engine, avionics or other system.

ADs are mandatory in most jurisdictions and often contain dates or aircraft flying hours by which compliance must be completed. Some ADs are of such a high priority that compliance must be completed prior to the next flight of the aircraft.

Who has to comply with ADs?
No person may operate a product to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of the AD. Furthermore, the owner or operator of an aircraft is required by 14 CFR part 91.403 to maintain the aircraft in compliance with all ADs.

When do I have to comply with an AD?
The AD specifies a compliance time that relates to the effective date of the AD. That compliance time determines when the actions are required.

SmoothOnTop

They're lucky the FAA didn't slap them with counts of reckless endangerment (CFR part 91).

fireman0174

Oh, it will be reported all right; on page 23 of the local newspaper, right next to the story and photos of the local pie-eating contest.

flaps 9

Hopefully this will help expedite the retirement schedules on the -300's

paxhauler85

Didn't mean to come across like I guess I did.

I'm not that F/O - only thing I meant was: calm wind at an uncongested airport, most of the CA's I fly with say "which one do you want?"

I was a annoyed with people posting their false ideas on what is actually happening to SWA. Didn't want it to translate into me being a dick F/O.

I'm onboard with the CA's authority, the old school way.

LuvJockey

EagleDriver -

The FAA mandates AD compliance, but relies HEAVILY upon the inputs of both 121 operators and aircraft manufacturers in the creation of those AD's. It is no accident that the FAA ACO for the 737 happens to be in Seattle. Boeing states the the aircraft were safe for flight, and I trust their opinion. I'm sure you are smarter than I am (and probably smarter than the Boeing engineers), but you are confusing the terms "safe" and "airworthy." An aircraft can fail to meet the regulatory requirements of the FAA and still be perfectly safe. When this particular AD was written, aircraft that had been in service for well over ten years and tens of thousands of cycles had 90 days to comply with the AD. To suggest that the aircraft were magically unsafe for the ten days prior to a reinspection is a gross misrepresentation. SWA recently (last year) put together new maintenance tracking software. Apparently, this AD was improperly implemented for a certain series of aircraft within the 737-300 group of aircraft that SWA operates. Obviously, somebody messed up, and deserves to pay the consequences for that mistake, thus the $200,000 fine for missed inspections makes sense to me, as does an "adverse employment action" against whoever was responsible. SWA has had no patience with pilots making mistakes lately, I don't know why they would have any patience with anyone else making mistakes.

Second, before or after an AD is issued, operators are free to request an Alternative Method of Compliance from an FAA Principle Maintenance Inspector. That PMI is the FAA's point of contact and liaison for all maintenance matters affecting that particular part 121 operator. An AMOC may even contain different timeframes than the AD, as this action obviously did. If the FAA's PMI agreed to the plan (as SWA has thus far stated) and the FAA did not voice any disapproval until their Congressional funding master slapped them, then yes I certainly question their motives.

Third, the whole program of self-disclosure (both pilot ASAP reports and airline operations/maintenance self-disclosure) is under attack now by the FAA's handlers because they say it makes the relationship between the FAA and airlines "too cozy." In my opinion, the current close relationships between the FAA, Aircraft Manufacturers, and Airlines has been very successful in improving airline safety over the last 20 years. Again, the FAA relies heavily on inputs from both operators and manufacturers in its AD program. Self-disclosure creates an open atmosphere in which airlines can put forth valuable information for other operators of an aircraft type, and do it much more quickly and effectively than purely governmental action. If you believe the mantra "in order to professionalize, you must federalize" then I heartily disagree (that was Congress's brilliant reasoning for creating the TSA).

But then, that's just my opinion, and I'm not very smart (aw shucks).

EagleDriver

LuvJockey,

It seems you inferred that you might not be that smart but that also means that you agree you are trying to sugarcoat the story. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence, sorry.

I agree with the balance of your previous post but it does not obscure the fact that SW messed up and didn't follow proper maintenence procedures. They in fact flew aircraft that were by definition "unairworthy" because they were not in compliance with the AD's for that aircraft. To try to paint the picture that they were "safe" is in disagreement with what was stated in the original AD. The AD was issued with a date for compliance because that is what the FAA, the manufacturer and the 737 operators agreed was the "safe" thing to do. They exceeded the timeframe specified in the AD. Move on.

Your third point about self disclosure is the grand debate. I agree that in a perfect world self disclosure brings many benefits but the downside is that it relies on company managers to always do the right thing. Looking back in aviation history that has not always worked. Remember why ALPA was formed? Remember Lorenzo? The FAA won't even let him near aviation again because his blind cost cutting initiatives and treatment of employees decreased safety for the travling public.

The FAA is in a difficult position because of the mission statement given to it by Congress. The FAA is supposed to promote Air Commerce but also act as the enforcement arm of the U.S. Gov't to ensure safe transportation. Sometimes these two initiatives are in conflict with each other. The FAA wants airlines to be profitable so that they can continue operations and enhance air commerce yet enforcement actions may cost these companies money.

I am in no way saying that SW is even close to what Lorenzo created. SW is a great airline, there, I said it for you! I'm just saying SW messed up, should swallow hard and move on. The fine is the only method the FAA has available to ensure compliance for the next incident.

Spinmeisters will do what they are paid to do - damage control. This forum is predominately read by commercial pilots. Every pilot that I know would be upset (outraged) if they found out that they had been flying aircraft that were long overdue in required maintenence checks. If you feel it necessary to defend SW in this incident I think you would be more effective on a forum not frequented by professional pilots. The traveling public doesn't understand the intracacies on this business anyway and you efforts would be better rewarded.

LuvJockey

EagleDriver -

There is absolutely no excuse for an AD not being incorporated (even in error) for an approved part 121 maintenance plan, we are in agreement on that point.

That mistake was discovered and self-disclosed. SWA, Boeing, and the FAA PMI all apparently agreed that it was safe to continue the aircraft for the next 10 days until the inspections were completed. Again, if you disagree with SWA, Boeing, and the PMI, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I've never known a pilot that didn't have one on every subject.

From your callsign and past posts, I am assuming that you're an AA pilot (or AMR Eagle). If that is the case, I think your views of this issue are deeply slanted by the A300 rudder issues with AMR, AirBus, the FAA, and NTSB. I understand your point of view completely in light of that accident, but that catastrophic structural failure has nothing to do with this AD, and can't be viewed in the same way. SW's pilots have been very proactive concerning aircraft safety of flight issues. To suggest that I am spinning for SWA is not accurate, and also insulting.

There is no doubt that the traveling public does not understand the intricacies of AD's and the FAA's relationship with airlines. As a professional pilot, you should understand more than most that Congressman Obserstar's push for FAA reform in air carrier operations will have a significant effect on the industry. I am deeply skeptical that any media spotlight seeking politician is about to reform anything for the better. For starters, I would guess that when issues arise (especially media covered, such as the JetBlue nose landing gear), the FAA will be much more likely to ground entire fleets for inspections as there will be less room for judgement and discretion of manufacturers, operators, and PMI's. That probably means that airlines will be less likely to work closely with the FAA in disclosing problems, which will ultimately adversely affect safety and job security for you and me both. As a professional pilot, that should concern even you.

Hunt599

Safety inquiries may tarnish aviation darling Southwest Airlines
Aviation darling buffeted by inspection program inquiries
12:51 AM CST on Saturday, March 8, 2008
By DAVE MICHAELS and TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News



The immaculate airline may be in for a fall from grace.

For years the darling of aviation, Southwest Airlines suddenly faces a public assault on its safety record from regulators and senior lawmakers.

Separate congressional and Federal Aviation Administration investigations this week detailed what one senior lawmaker called "strong evidence of systemic flaws in the Southwest airworthiness" inspection program.

Gary Kelly, Southwest's chief executive, said Friday he would vigorously defend his company's commitment to safety and that the $10.2 million fine levied by the FAA "felt unfair."

"It is not something that we normally have to do," Mr. Kelly said of defending the Dallas-based airline from public criticism. "I'm very proud to do it. ... The culture here is very strong, and safety is part of our DNA."

Southwest noted that it blew the whistle on itself when it realized that, over a period of 30 months, it had failed to check 46 jets for fuselage cracks. If the cracks become significant, they can endanger flying ability.

But an investigation overseen by Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., detailed Friday, suggested a darker motive -- the carrier took advantage of a complacent regulator to keep flying the jets instead of immediately conducting the inspections.

The FAA acknowledged that one of its principal maintenance inspectors permitted Southwest to keep flying Boeing 737s that should have been grounded.

"We have seen the pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of compliance toward a carrier-favorable, cozy relationship with the airlines," Mr. Oberstar said.

Mr. Kelly denied that Southwest's relationship with FAA inspectors was too cozy, saying safety requires cooperation, trust and openness.

"As long as there is integrity in the record-keeping and there are clear rules and regulations, they shouldn't leave much room for any shenanigans there. At this point, I don't have any evidence that that is an issue," he said.

An airline needs to have confidence that it can disclose its own mistakes without being unduly punished, Mr. Kelly said.

"That's what the word 'partnership' means," he said. "It doesn't mean a wink and a nod and avoid problems."

For Southwest, the path forward includes an internal investigation, another FAA audit of its compliance systems and a possible appeal of a record fine through legal channels.

The carrier's top executives will testify at an April 3 hearing conducted by Mr. Oberstar, where he plans to introduce front-line FAA inspectors from North Texas who complained about what they called Southwest's spotty compliance record for more than three years.

Mr. Kelly said Friday the airline was conducting its own investigation to determine the course of events.

"I don't think we have anything that's broken," he said. "But we're certainly going to use this as an opportunity to review once again and make sure we've got the very best maintenance procedures in the world."

The carrier's reputation on Capitol Hill is as positive as its relationship with longtime passengers. Two years ago, it out-muscled American Airlines to overturn a 27-year-old law that forbid long flights from Love Field, the carrier's base.

Southwest's business at Love Field has boomed since the law's repeal, accomplished with the help of the North Texas congressional delegation.

The airline argues that its side of the story hasn't been heard. But allegations that it flouted safety laws may prove difficult to surmount.

"Safety trumps everything," said one airline consultant who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to give interviews. "But they do have a totally different characterization of what the facts are."

Mr. Oberstar's criticism of Southwest could put one of his committee lieutenants in an awkward position. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, chairs the panel's subcommittee on water resources and environment.

Tricky position

Through its political action committee, Dallas-based Southwest has supported Ms. Johnson's campaigns, although not as frequently as some of her House colleagues'. Southwest's PAC hasn't made a donation to her since Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

Ms. Johnson hasn't commented during the chairman's investigation. But she'll be there when the full committee airs its findings with Mr. Kelly and other Southwest officials.

Mr. Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said his committee's investigation found that 47 jets -- the FAA says 46 -- were operated without being subjected to fuselage inspections. Seventy jets did not receive rudder-control inspections.

"Those inspections were required in the aftermath of fatalities due to those failures," Mr. Oberstar said. The veteran lawmaker called it "the most serious lapse in safety I have observed at FAA in 23 years."

Under FAA regulations, airlines police some aspects of safety themselves, an approach that is supposed to result in more information being shared with regulators. The airlines may be assessed lower fines if they report a violation on their own.

Mr. Oberstar said that approach has created a system with too few inspectors and too many FAA managers who are close to their airline counterparts.

Mr. Kelly said that system is beneficial because it allows airlines to report problems without fearing the regulators.

In Southwest's case, the airline ran afoul of rules known as airworthiness directives. One directive requires that airlines regularly inspect the exterior of jets that have flown more than 35,000 flights.

The airline also was late in checking the planes' rudder-control systems under the airline's own maintenance program, Mr. Oberstar said.

"I fully expect FAA to address those violations in a separate enforcement action," he said.

Charges denied

In a prepared statement, Southwest denied Mr. Oberstar's charges over rudders, saying that it had missed only a Boeing-required task on standby rudder power control units, not an FAA-issued airworthiness directive.

Southwest noticed the missed fuselage inspections -- which it reported to the FAA -- last March during an audit of its compliance with airworthiness directives, FAA officials said. The airline should have then stopped flying the jets until they were properly inspected and any flaws fixed.

A Southwest employee in charge of regulatory compliance documented the failures and noted on a computerized form that the airline was in compliance, according to House committee aides. However, Southwest kept flying 38 of the 46 jets for a total of 1,451 flights, a decision that FAA officials characterized as flunking a basic safety test.

"There is no simpler thing in the aviation industry for people to understand than the requirement for an AD [airworthiness directive]," said Peggy Gilligan, deputy associate administrator for aviation safety.

Jim Ballough, the FAA director of flight standard service, said local FAA officials failed to make sure the planes weren't flown.

"There should be a verification that takes place, and how that could happen is some probing questions asked by our people," Mr. Ballough said. "There were a number of ways they could have determined that those aircraft were in fact out of service."

The committee is continuing to look into why the FAA failed to do that. A committee aide said Friday that a Southwest employee who deals with the FAA on regulatory compliance issues previously worked for the federal agency and was supervised by the FAA's principal maintenance inspector who oversees Southwest Airlines.

FAA employment rosters confirm that the Southwest employee previously worked in the FAA office.

That FAA official has since been transferred. So was his supervisor, who managed the office that oversaw Southwest's flight certificate.

Dave Michaels reported from Washington, D.C., and Terry Maxon from Dallas.

[email protected];

[email protected]

LuvJockey

Seems as if the FAA and SWA accounts of all this are getting to be quite different. Maybe a hearing isn't a bad thing, I would like to hear the whole story myself. If it's as bad as Chairman Oberstar is saying, I would think that heads will roll all the way to the front office. I'm still more skeptical of politicians and media coverage than our management, but at this point, I think we need to have a hearing.