kronan

Okay III Corps, you've done the research that indicates SWA had roughly 450 days to comply with the AD.......and, they apparently couldn't get it done in that amount of time. So, self-reported that they hadn't done the AD. Continued to fly the airplanes......until they wound up with egg on the face and took all of those airplanes out of service until they complied with the AD.

I know SWA gets more flying out of their planes than is industry standard, but, must have been some down time in there somewhere for them to take them out of service and get it done.


Just took a look at an old story, and reportedly the checks took about 90 minutes to accomplish. So, in that 450 days, SWA couldn't find 90 minutes to git'r done and avoid grounding 44 airplanes (6 of which apparently did have fatigue cracks)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/12/sou...nes/index.html

III Corps

No one is suggesting anyone was willfully 'slack' and even Boeing said no one was at risk in this case. But you may have a bright future in politics with your non-sequiturs and questions about how many have to die. Makes for good show but little else.

Southwest and I would opine most established carriers know that 'slack' maintenance can cost big time and as I mentioned, back in the 80s Boeing said a fatal accident can cost a **BILLION** so there is no upside to 'slacking' off inspections or not complying with ADs.

And IF YOU WATCHED the hearings you would have seen late in the day some other FAA officials who said the 'whistleblowers' were not exactly pristine guys but then they were scheduled late in the day when the press had gone to deadline and the juicy stuff of crying FAA guys had already happened.

Yes, ADs need to be complied with. Yes, people should do what they are supposed to do but then if that happened all the time, we would not need the NASA ASRS. Perhaps we should do away with that and the immunity it affords for when people err.

IF they can prove that SW deliberately 'slacked' off on the AD, fine. Fine them but otherwise, let's not get sucked into a Congressional circus in an election year.

III Corps

Again, no one is excusing SW for failure to comply HOWEVER remember even Boeing said this was not akin to Aloha's fatigue and NO ONE WAS AT RISK. Now, maybe Boeing is also not telling the truth. Maybe Boeing is being 'slack' to quote a fellow poster. Maybe Boeing should also be fined.

But this incident is being used to show the FAA has failed and that there may be problems in the industry. Not that there are problems because no one can show that to be fact. There have been some publications that have even gone so far as to call it a 'growing crisis' which is always good for the front page. The MD-80 wire bundle is another example. Self disclosed and some aircraft were found to have spacers at 1 1/4in rather than the 1in specified in the AD. What was reported? That the AD had not been complied with or inspections were incomplete. No mention that most of the airplanes were found to be in compliance and many of those which were not were off by 1/4 inch.

I guess after a few decades on this planet and a few decades flying for airlines and doing hufacts studies and working with maint guys, I have more faith in the guys on the line than I do in election year Congressional hearings starring 'whistleblowers.' I guess it is just my growing a bit jaundiced and not wanting to swallow every bit of pap offered by what seems to be more and more tabloid journalism.

Tuck

You'd think SWA would have some of the best maint - yeah they fly them hard thru the day but they sit completely idle at night and a 737 doesn't require much (I fly them in the reserves). I imagine just about every SWA 737 has 4-6 hours of sit time every night.

brewster

An AD was issued and should have been complied with, period. No excuses.

It is becoming clear to me the "Corps" in your name does not refer to what I had thought.

III Corps

III Corps is where FACed way back when... but no, not a Marine. Worked with a few but not one.

tanker

The AD actually required a series of overlapping inspections. March of LAST year SWA discovered that in 46 of the 220 aircraft that required the AD a 20 square inch area had not been inspected during the required AD overlapping inspections. This 20 square inch area had been inspected previously, just not during the overlapping AD inspections. SWA went to the FAA and Boeing and asked if they could have a 10 day window to inspect this 20 square inch area IAW the AD. They both said it was not a safety issue and to take up to 10 days to accomplish the AD inspection of the 20 square inch area, which was done in 8 days. This year the fine that SWA is getting is for the 8 day period that both Boeing, the writer of the AD, and the FAA said it was okay to fly the aircraft. The fine is not for the flying done prior to the self disclosure but for the time frame after when the FAA said it was okay.

reddog25

Takes 4-6 hours to cool off the brakes every nite

1Seat 1Engine

We grounded 44 for inspections just the other week and only cnx'ed 2% of the schedule to make it happen in a single night.

We could have made it happen just like that last year except everybody (FAA and Boeing) said we had 10 days to do it in.

I see a lot of grand-standing when I read between the lines.

III Corps

Thanks for adding a bit more clarity to this discussion and in some ways verifying what I have been alluding to.