Southwest Airlines Article from CNN
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/sou...nes/index.html

Southwest Airlines Allowed to fly "Unsafe" planes for months.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- Discount air carrier Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft federal inspectors said were "unsafe" as recently as last March, according to detailed congressional documents obtained by CNN.
Congressional documents show Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft deemed "unsafe" by federal inspectors.

Documents submitted by FAA inspectors to congressional investigators allege the airline flew at least 117 of its planes in violation of mandatory safety checks. In some cases, the documents say, the planes flew for 30 months past government inspection deadlines that should have grounded the planes until the inspections could be completed.
The planes were "not air worthy," according to congressional air safety investigators.
Calling it "one of the worst safety violations" he has ever seen, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, is expected to call a hearing as soon as possible to ask why the airline put its own passengers in danger.
Southwest Airlines, which carried more passengers in the United States than any other airline last year, declined comment on the allegations.
"We are not doing interviews. We are only preparing for the hearings at this time," said Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Brandy King.
The documents obtained by CNN also allege that some management officials at the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for commercial air safety, knew the planes were flying "unsafely" and did nothing about it.
"The result of inspection failures, and enforcement failure, has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, unairworthy, and at risk of lives," Oberstar told CNN.
He said both FAA managers and the airline may not only have threatened the safety of Southwest passengers, but may also have broken the law.
The documents were prepared by two FAA safety inspectors who have requested whistle-blower status from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is chaired by Oberstar. The two inspectors have been subpoenaed to testify before the committee.
The whistle-blowers say FAA managers knew about the lapse in safety at Southwest, but decided to allow the airline to conduct the safety checks on a slower schedule because taking "aircraft out of service would have disrupted Southwest Airlines' flight schedule."

According to statements made by one of the FAA inspectors seeking whistle-blower status, a manager at the FAA "permitted the operation of these unsafe aircraft in a matter that would provide relief" to the airline, even though paying customers were on board.
The safety inspections ignored or delayed by the airline were mandated after two fatal crashes and one fatal incident, all involving Boeing's 737, the only type of airplane Southwest flies.
In 1994, a U.S. Air Boeing 737 crashed in Pittsburgh killing 132. Three years earlier, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs, killing 25. 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.
Documents provided to CNN show 70 Southwest jets were allowed to fly past the deadline for the mandatory rudder inspections.
The documents also show 47 more Southwest jets kept flying after missing deadlines for inspections for cracks in the planes' fuselage or "skin."
The long-term, mandatory checks for fuselage cracks were required after the cabin of an Aloha Airlines 737 tore apart in mid-air in 1988, killing a flight attendant. That incident, which opened much of the top of the plane during flight, was attributed to cracks in the plane's fuselage that grew wider as the plane underwent pressure changes during flight.
An FAA inspector at a Southwest Airlines maintenance facility spotted a fuselage crack on of the airline's 737s last year, according to the congressional documents. He notified the airline and then began looking through safety records, discovering dozens of planes that had missed mandatory inspection deadlines.
According to the inspector's statement in congressional documents: "Southwest Airlines at the time of discovery did not take immediate, corrective action as required to address this unsafe condition and continued to fly the affected aircraft with paying passengers."
The documents show Southwest Airlines voluntarily disclosed some of the missed inspections last spring, and Southwest Airlines told the Wall Street Journal it did not expect any civil penalties to be imposed because of the self-disclosure.
But, even after the airline's disclosure, FAA inspectors assert that planes continued to fly, in some cases for more than a week, before inspections were complete. The airline "did not take immediate, corrective action," according to the congressional documents obtained by CNN.
"That is wrong," said Oberstar. "When an aircraft is flying out of compliance with airworthiness directives, it is to be shut down and brought in for maintenance inspection. That's the law."
Southwest Airlines has never had a catastrophic crash. Federal investigators determined a 2005 incident at Midway airport in Chicago that killed one person on the ground was the result of pilot error, as was a 2000 incident at Burbank airport in California that seriously injured 2 passengers.

The whistle-blowers were Feds????? :eek:

We all have that perception that SWA gets preferential treatment from ATC...I never would have guessed that FAA Mx was in on the deal too. I hope they got more out of it than a few pizzas :mad:

I re-read the article a few times.... this is pretty serious stuff for Southwest :(

It defintely could be very serious, but I'll abide by the old guideline that says, "Things are almost never as good or as bad as they are initially reported."

Took me two reads to figure out it could be potentially horrid for WN...but they'll get through it - they always do.

I saw that article and immediately came over here to find out the real story.

Besides, I never thought it was unsafe to fly SWA, just land and taxi:)

I never thought it as unsafe to fly SWA, just land and taxi:)

There's always the first time for everything and everyone. This article seems serious enough. For some reason it does not surprise me one bit considering, SWA is an extremely cost conscious airline. I've been told SWA jets always ask for the nearest runway for takeoffs, and they do seem to taxi faster than others, though that could be just be my perception.

From USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...swa-fine_N.htm

Regulators target Southwest for penalty of at least $3M

DALLAS — Federal regulators will seek a penalty of at least $3 million against Southwest Airlines for failing to inspect older planes for cracks.
The airline said Thursday it had complied with regulators' requests and would contest any fine.

The Federal Aviation Administration could officially notify Southwest of actions against it as early as Thursday, said a person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the FAA has not announced any action.

The FAA is looking into Southwest's failure to do required inspections on some of its older Boeing 737s.

The planes are covered by an FAA safety directive for inspecting older aircraft for structural soundness. The aim of the program is to find and repair small cracks before they become a safety hazard.

A spokeswoman for Southwest, Beth Harbin, said the airline brought the issue to the FAA's attention and believed it had handled the matter to the agency's satisfaction. Harbin said the airline believed the case was closed last year.

"We brought in 46 airplanes to take another look at them," Harbin said. "These are preventive inspections. On six of the 46 we found the start of some very small cracking. That's the intent of the inspection schedule — to find something before it becomes a problem. These are safe planes."

The FAA action was first reported by The Wall Street Journal in Thursday editions.

The person close to the case said Southwest self-reported that it had accidentally missed some inspections. The key, the person said, was that Southwest then continued flying the planes before completing the inspections.

A congressional committee is looking into why the FAA didn't ground the planes when it learned of the missed inspections a year ago.

FAA regulations require that airplanes be grounded if a mandatory inspection has been missed, until the work can be performed.

The person said the FAA could seek a penalty of $25,000 per violation, or $3 million to $36 million, but that it was unlikely the penalty would be in the upper range — partly because the agency must consider the company's ability to pay.

Airlines are under heavy financial pressure because of high fuel costs.

The largest civil penalty the FAA has ever imposed was $10 million, and the largest against an airline was $9.5 million about two decades ago against Eastern Airlines.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

$3 million thats all? I can think of airlines that were hit with huge fines for EACH flight that ONE airplane took with the incorrect paperwork or missing inspection. I think $3 million is just the tip of the iceburg right now.

I do agree with the above.....3 Million Dollars sounds like the tip of the iceberg. In the threads opening article, they said that they are preparing for an "investigation."....the words of the SWA spokesman. I'm sure there is going to be a lot more info to come about once they open a hearing and dig further. With 117 aircraft in violation (per the article) to various degrees, 3 Million sounds like a "deal" of a fine.

WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators on Thursday proposed a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines (LUV.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the largest safety penalty ever, for allegedly failing to inspect planes for structural cracks.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Southwest continued to fly uninspected aircraft even after notifying regulators that the checks had not been performed.

Southwest can appeal the proposed fine. (Reporting by John Crawley; editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

You obviously know exactly how SWA, and all other airlines operate.

There's a huge difference between cost conscious and unsafe.

You've been told that they ask for the nearest rwy? Funny, I always ask for the one furthest from the gate b/c I like to burn as much gas a possible and take the most amount of time as well.

Think before you speak.

I'm sure some are happy to see a negative article on SWA, because most probably believe that a black eye for SWA will help their own company. Here's some food for thought, though -

This inspection error was discovered and disclosed by SWA last March, and was resolved within days. Rumor so far here is that SWA asked the FAA for permission to fly the aircraft for the approx 7 days until all aircraft could be inspected, and the FAA agreed. The issue that the Senate hearing is now going to be FAA oversight of airlines (specifically SWA in this case) and if the FAA has been effective, as well as if SWA has gotten some type of preferential treatment at the expense of the safety of passengers. The FAA had considered the matter settled, but yesterday announced a proposed fine of 3 million, soon followed by a proposed fine of 10 million to show that they're not being too easy on SWA.

The question is, how can they tell if SWA has been given preferential treatment if they don't bring up the behind-the-doors actions against other airlines and make them public? Sure, there could be a congressional hearing, but I wouldn't be wishing for one no matter who I worked for. Nothing like politicians in the media spotlight to try to scare the crap out of the public, but don't expect that spotlight to be solely on your competitor. In the mean time, go ahead and enjoy the stumble of a competitor.:o

Dude, you need to change your sign on...it says CRJ-200 CA (Soon). If that's correct you're not the one requesting the furthest runway........:cool:

Somehow I see the government re-regulating the industry once again.

One would think it will be challenging to put the toothpaste back in the tube ...

Sometimes you gotta make a new tube then.

The saga continues...

Boeing press release:

Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of their technical opinion that the continued operation of their Classic 737s, for up to ten days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue. Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded the 10-day compliance plan was technically valid. In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised.

hold on there tex!
 

NEIY -Not Enough Information, Yet

I think Herb is sitting back having a few wild turkey's pondering this one. In reality I don't think this is going to hurt SWA they will somehow take a twist with this one and probably find some marketing genius side to it...stranger things have happened.

Doesn't matter - the FAA still has to approve the extension. If my airline wants to extend something as simple as a DMI (deferred mx item) they need approval from their FAA Prinicpal Mx Inspector, even if Boeing says it's fine.

Info From SWA
 

Hi everyone,
You may want to check out Southwest's blog for more information on this.
Brian

Just making a point that those who don't know their butt from third base shouldn't post on any airline thread.

Every CA I fly with leaves the choice up to me, when there is a choice involved.

The "soon" thing will not be applicable here in another month.

have never flown southwest and never will, unless........?
Tune in tomorrow — same unairworthy time, same unairworthy channel

LoL you know it ;)

...::deleted::...

Can anybody actually, seriously wish ill-will on WN?? I know that happens in the Regionals all the time, but ya'll grow up when you move on, right??

Count I: At the Regionals, the 59,791 cycles (even self-disclosed) may have resulted in $10K per.

Count II: The 1451 additional cycles would probably have been levied at the maximum $25K per (willful intent).

$ 626 million ($ 590M + $36M) makes jo's Hawaiian headache look like chump change.

This makes the WN CFO's decision very easy to write the 10M check.

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

you might want to take your own advise here. I remember flying with guys like you, that was fun...

so do you wear one 3 stripe epaulet and one 4 stripe?

I agree with Eric Stratton. I could not have said it better. Not fun flying with guys like that, an FO who thinks he is wearing one 3 stripe and one 4 stripe. We had a couple like that who were asked to resign.

Last time I checked CA taxies the aircraft and the ground controller tells you where to go, NOT some FO who thinks he knows everything.

Hey paxhauler, or whatever your call sign is, you need to take some asprin and chill. Seriously. You've got some anger management issues, dude.
You don't tell others not to post on here or not. Not up to you.

Let me first say that I am a huge fan of SWA. I love the business plan, the product, the way they treat their employees. That being said, I'm affraid that pointing the finger at other airlines is not going to cut it.

SWA screwed up! Plain and simple. There's no evidence (at this time) that anyone else benefited from the extensions other than SWA. They knew what they were doing.

I can assure you 99% of the folks here (myself included) wish SWA folks nothing but the best, but you can't honestly come on here and disregard the fact that SWA flew some of their aircraft illegally and unsafely.

I think its deplorable that this occured but....
...somebody may have already touched on it but I can't wait to hear the "I'll never fly SWA again." ........










....Until I need to fly somewhere. crap

Its quite sad that DQC in the maintenance side of the house could let this happen to an excellent carrier such as SWA. One airplane slipping through the cracks (pardon the expression) but 46 aircraft??? The crews of SWA should be up in arms over this situation. The crews and passengers could have been possible victims. One can only imagine what else was overlooked or mx items pencile whipped.

"Dear Rapid Rewards Member:



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—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."

Horse feathers!

I realize that's what they have to tell the flying public, but it still doesn't change the fact. I guess since non of the airplanes lost their rudders, "safety" was never compromised!?!?!?!?!

I love SWA, but they really screwed the pootch on this one.

Doesn't southwest outsource most of it's maintenance???

NO! Some of the heavy checks.