Southwest vs. the FAA

[OldTownPilot]

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

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


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 after government inspection deadlines had passed and should have been grounded until the inspections could be completed.

The planes were "not airworthy," 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 passengers in danger.

Southwest Airlines, which carried more passengers in the United States than any other airline last year, declined comment.

"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. CNN's Drew Griffin uncovers 'troubling information' »

"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 also have broken the law as well as threatened the safety of Southwest passengers.

The documents were prepared by two FAA safety inspectors who have requested whistle-blower status from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is headed 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 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 one 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.

......busted

Whoops.

[Beech driver]

No good publicity there.

[AP2B]

W O W

[bike21]

Yet another reason for me to dislike this carrier. My wife had to ride on them the other night and wasn't impressed at all. Dirty airplane and trash everywhere, apparently they don't clean their cabins to get those quick turns done? No wonder they can turn a 737 before we can turn and RJ out. Oncoming customers should ALWAYS have a 'clean' plane. And a safe one.

I do hope the investigation is objective and all responsible parties are held accountable. Letting mx stuff slide is unacceptable. For their sake it better have been accidental.

[turbojet28]

Is this how they reduce their costs?

[Nick]

Equally busted appears to be the FAA who let SWA's flight schedule coerce them into not grounding planes that should have.

At least that's what I got out of it.

[PCL_128]

Dear God, please don't let us merge with this carrier.

[Firebird2XC]

So the question NOW is...

... are those planes still flying? Has anything even changed?

[tonyw]

Wow. Just wow.

That's some serious stuff there. One or two airplanes is one thing but 117?

According to Southwest's website, they operate 525 airplanes.

That's nearly a quarter of their fleet that was ALLEGEDLY being operated in violation of the regs.

[Firebird2XC]

Maybe this'll be a standing point for the public to go

"HEY! If one of the BEST low-cost carrier does this.. what about all those Airline-Come-Latelys? Are THEY dodging safety??"

They then all shell out $10 or $15 more for a ticket on an airline they think might be safer.

Suddenly, it's all about safety and non price wars!

I may have just gone insane with optimism, but hey, ain't this a nicer thought than the usual doom 'n gloom?

[GalaxyIFE]

Amazing...not surprising though I guess; OK maybe a little.

This is another example of how aviation changes ON A DIME. I would have guessed that 80% of the wannabes here would have given "almost anything" to fly for SW. Now, lots of bashing, even a comment how "my regional airline is better than SWA." I'm not flame baiting here, just illustrating how things in this industry is always evolving!!!

If this in fact has happened then they need to be smacked down hard by the feds...no questions about it.

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by Nick

Equally busted appears to be the FAA who let SWA's flight schedule coerce them into not grounding planes that should have.

At least that's what I got out of it.

[skydog]

Other than a couple of runway overruns, this is a carrier that has gone its entire existence (37 years) without a single crash. That is hardly the pattern of a carrier that ignores safety. Compare that with any other airline.

Seems to me that the FAA knew what was going, signed off on it, and then when the publicity hit the fan they hung SWA out to dry. Meanwhile that same FAA let accidents like Alaska and Valujet happen.

[JDMcFly]

Entirely unacceptable. Both parties to blame, of course. Hell, I would blame the FAA more simply because they knew about it and let it happen for the sake of SWA's schedule.

[USMCmech]

There is much more to this story than is in that article.


Two FAA whistleblowers claim that required maintence was ignored.SWA will state that such maintence did not apply to thier airplanes, or was properly deffered with knowledge of their PMI. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle depending on how you read the regulations, and maintence instructions.

Perhaps SWA used one method of inspection to look for cracks that thier interpertion said was legit, while these FSDO inspectors disagreed, but were overruled by thier bosses.

It happens all the time.


A lot more technial stuff than can be put into a newspaper article for the general masses.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by skydog

Other than a couple of runway overruns, this is a carrier that has gone its entire existence (37 years) without a single crash. That is hardly the pattern of a carrier that ignores safety. Compare that with any other airline.

SWA has been very lucky that their accidents and incidents don't include many fatalities. But keep in mind, this airline was much smaller than the other major airlines for a huge majority of its time in existence. SWA as a domestic behemoth only really took off in the 90s. Prior to that, it was really a smaller niche carrier. But SWA's history of incidents and accidents is troubling. Everyone should read the full NTSB report of their BUR overrun. Absolutely appalling, but that accident is clearly a result of their flight ops culture.

Meanwhile that same FAA let accidents like Alaska and Valujet happen.

The FAA can't be blamed for the ValuJet crash. That crash was solely the fault of the shipper of the O2 generators.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by skydog

Other than a couple of runway overruns, this is a carrier that has gone its entire existence (37 years) without a single crash. That is hardly the pattern of a carrier that ignores safety. Compare that with any other airline.

I will compare that with any other airline.

The number of crashes does not indicate the safety of an air carrier. A crash is just an ASAP report that fully manifested itself by passing through every single safety obstacle in the way and ending in the worst possible scenario.

This morning there could have been an airline that flew a jet, in IMC, way too low over a ridge near some mountainous outstation airport and missed crashing by 200 feet. That is not going to be in the news, but will anyone besides a select few ever know it happened? No, but it is not safe either.

At one point years ago, USAir had I believe five out of the last six major accidents and was undergoing lots of scrutiny from the FAA, who could not account for the dismal numbers and USAir could not be faulted in any major way. Sometimes safety is a mystery.

[ackeight]

I think there might be a bit of "luck" in their 37 years of existance about not having an accident. If you are an airline that is as large as Southwest eventually you WILL have one if you operate long enough and you WILL have loss of life unfortunatly. Maybe this investigation will be good for the airline/public as to prolongue(sp) that accident from occuring in the near future.

[mtsu_av8er]

I, for one, am rooting for them and hope that they continue to run other companies to shame. This isn't gonna stop me from going out of my way to buy tickets on them! I'd rather they get my money than pretty much any other carrier in the universe!

It'll be interesting to see what comes of the hearings, regardless!

[flywithUS]

I wonder how the media and Joe Public handles this compared to if it was another airline, say AA or UA...

Just thinking out loud.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by flywithUS

I wonder how the media and Joe Public handles this compared to if it was another airline, say AA or UA...

Just thinking out loud.

Well, if the other airlines weren't so 5h1tty, maybe SW wouldn't look so good.

Just thinking outloud.

[Murdoughnut]

They could have the wing held on by duct tape and I'd still fly them over USAir.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by Murdoughnut

They could have the wing held on by duct tape and I'd still fly them over USAir.

You can say that again!

I cry everytime I have to jumpseat on Airways . . . . you couldn't buy me a free ticket on that crap!

[MusketeerMan]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

You can say that again!

I cry everytime I have to jumpseat on Airways . . . . you couldn't buy me a free ticket on that crap!

What about Airways Express....just for example...

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

Well, if the other airlines weren't so 5h1tty, maybe SW wouldn't look so good.

Just thinking outloud.

Yeah, because dying in a rudder hard-over accident would be much better than riding a legacy jumpseat.