Southwest Airlines/FAA situation. A comment from down under.

Published 08 March 2008 18:38

Good grief. Have just spent a couple of hours reading as much as I could find on this bizarre situation. How on earth did such a fine carrier, with one of the best safety records in airline history, find itself so heavily in the proverbial. Facts: SWA operates many aged, high-time, high-cycle 737s. Many were developing fatigue and/or stress airframe cracks in the pressure hull. There was a quite sensible AD issued to inspect and repair cracks which allowed ample time to do the work or pull them out of the air. Neither of these options was followed. The cracking was not addressed and dozens of the affected machines just kept flying on, and on and on..... This was an illegal act, no matter who was to blame. I have not flown in the USA so do not know what is the format or the content of the ship's Tech Log. Were the pilots aware that they were operating aircraft with outstanding ADs? And had they known, would they all have continued to fly them? If a non-urgent AD cannot be met by the time-line, you have two options. Go to the FAA and request an extension, stating your case, or GROUND the aeroplane and fix the problem. Surely that is pretty simple decision making? But to me, I cannot help escape the (interim) conclusion that the arch-enemy, the Devil incarnate of aviation standards and safety, COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, had systemically wormed its evil way into the bowels of this great carrier. What I do recommend is that both SWA and the FAA admit they had/have a joint problem. Scrub the fine and get on with the fix. Perhaps all air carriers can learn from this strange situation...I certainly hope so.

by dakota67

Comments

# airlinescapee said on 09 March 2008 01:03

I resigned from United Airlines Airframe Maintenance in 1999.  I don't know how you do it in New Zealand, but in the U. S.  the FAA does not actually inspect airplanes.  They inspect paperwork.

Elderly airframes develop cracks all the time.  Some are big, and in improtant places, like passenger door openings.  Some are small in in less important places

like landing gear door hinges.

I have not worked on Southwest airplanes, but if their 737's are like United planes, the FAA might have exaggerated the problem to gain publicity to show the public and the U.S. Congress they are doing something.  Watch what the ultimate fine turns out to be.  If it is over $100,000 dollars U.S. I will be surprised.

# dakota67 said on 09 March 2008 02:04

Yes thanks. I do know approx. how the FAA functions. Same out here really but the NZCAA do execute spot on-site checks of actual hardware. But we have a FAR/JAR  Rule Part system based on USA and Euro practice. Our Audits are largely Paper work checking. It is all such an avoidable mess and so easily rectified. I really suggest that the fine be waived and a serious co-operative attitude come into play. We have an Infringement Fine system also...but in serious cases, the Judicial system comes into play. Hope it all works out well in the end.