FAA Fines For Southwest Airlines Safety Violations

[Bob_Roller]

I'm sure that, at least in the US and Canada, the news of the FAA ( Federal Aviation Administration), has notified Southwest Airlines of a $10.2 million fine for safety violations.

Here's the real story behind the news media 'hype'.

Southwest found a flaw in the inspection paperwork involving 46 aircraft, these inspections are done in phases depending on how many flight hours, or flight cycles the aircraft has accumulated.

Through an oversight on the person or persons involved in writing the inspection paperwork, a section of the fuselage skin wasn't technically inspected.

This section of aircraft 'skin' amounted to about 1% of the total fuselage skin surface area.

Southwest found the paperwork problem, self disclosed the violation to the FAA, contacted Boeing Aircraft Co., to see if it would be allowable to continue to fly the aircraft for 7-10 days, until all of the affected aircraft can be routed into a city with a major maintenance station to complete the inspection of the overlooked area.

Boeing engineering concluded that based on all of the inspections that had been complied with, that this was acceptable and posed no safety of flight issues, and sent an engineering authorization stating  this to Southwest.

The FAA also recieved a copy of Boeings engineering authorization, and agreed that as long as the affected aircraft were inspected within 10 calendar days, or 100 flight hours, that no further action by the FAA was necessary, and closed this matter in March, 2007.

An employee of the FAA took it upon himself to go to the news media with this earlier this month, a year after the matter was closed by the FAA.

If you have any questions about this, just post here and I'll answer them as best as I can.

If by chance you didn't know this, I am an aircraft mechanic for Southwest Airlines in Phoenix, Arizona.

[Rob Valdez 79 R65]

Sounds like some %&*)$@# at the FAA got a bug where it don't belong.

Surely the FAA can't (or shouldn't) renig on their agreement 12 months later?!?!?!

[Bob_Roller]

Rob,

I personally have not had any dealings with the individual that brought this to the news media ( I learned long ago about keeping a low profile ) , but several co-workers have had to deal with him, and from what I've heard, this person is out to make a name for himself within the FAA.

[Rob Valdez 79 R65]

I hate Type-A's.

I know I shouldn't say 'hate', but...

[Rob Valdez 79 R65]

Boy, the media sure is telling a different story, aren't they?

It is always nice to have inside information (from a source you can trust).


Just extrapolate this to the media and presidential election...  :-/

[Bob_Roller]

The whole basis for this was the fact that the FAA administrator in Dallas, where Southwest is based, didn't have the authority to drop the original issue last year, it needed to go to a higher authority within the FAA for the matter to be finalized.

The grounding of the 43 aircraft on Tuesday and Wednesday was for a different reason, an outside aviation consultant was brought in to do an independent examination of the aircraft maintenance records for Airworthiness Directive compliance.

They found that a two page document to the FAA to perform an inspection in an alternate method, due to some eddy current test probes were back ordered from the manufacturer, and would not be available for about 2-3 months had not been properly filed with the FAA.

The CEO of Southwest thought it would be better to take the aircraft out of service, due to the other publicity, and take our punishment now and get it overwith.

These cracks that have been talked about, for the most part are not visible to the naked eye, that's why electronic test equipment is used, when the paint is stripped away, it's still difficult to see most of them, so we are not talking about 'gaping holes' you stick an arm through.  

Cracks in fuselage 'skin' on pressurized aircraft have been a maintenance concern since passenger aircraft became pressurized.

For some interesting reading, do a search for the de Havilland Comet, the first passenger aircraft to be pressurized, and the disasterous results that occured with that aircraft.

A lot of people got on the 'band wagon' on these issues in a political sense as members of congress got involved that probably for the most part couldn't be to concerned about it, but election year is here, and they want to look good to their  voters.

Major airlines have tried repeatedly to put Southwest out of business over the last 37 years on a level playing field, but it kept on going and growing.

Most people don't know or realize this little fact, Southwest in 2007 carried more domestic passengers in the US than any other airline, I think around 102 million passengers.


So all in all , there is some truth to the original accusations, but not to the extent that they were sensationalized to.

Similar problems have occured at other airlines over the years, this is not an uncommon occurance in the aviation industry.

[suecanada]

My appreciation and pride in our forum members and the integrity of this forum just rose another notch! I really feel we have something special here that is not duplicated by too many other forums. It is the members that make it so

[Bob_Roller]

With the FAA going through a detailed review of maintenance paperwork of Southwest, and all the other US air carriers, don't be too surprised to hear of more issues in this area.

It is mind boggling the amount of 'paperwork' associated with even the most mundane routine maintenance tasks .

Here at Southwest, it's 2 pages of paperwork to fill out, plus a sign-off in the aircraft maintenance log to perform a tire pressure check, performed on a normally scheduled turn around time between flights.

[Rob Valdez 79 R65]

But there are 18 tires on a typical aircraft?

I know truckers check their's regularly, without the associated paperwork; but you guys need a paper trail in case one of those planes blows a tire on takeoff or landing.  There is so much at stake...

[Bob_Roller]

Rob,

The Boeing 737 which is the only aircraft Southwest operates, has 6 tires, two on each landing gear strut.

[Rob Valdez 79 R65]

I must be thinking of larger aircraft.

That and most of my time looking at planes land is on fictional TV shows, and they like the drama of the planes with tandem axles (on the wings), and having the rears touch down first, then "fold" so the fronts touch down.

Too much TV, I know.

We used to have places along the perimeter road at our big airport where you could watch planes.  Then we had 9/11...

[nhmaf]

I think that Rob has the opening scenes from "Hawaii-5-0" on the mind...  I know that I was always impressed by those behemoths touching down !
Even used to have a pair of Jack Lord - style sunglasses as a kid..    ah, those were the days !

[Bob_Roller]

Looks like American and Delta airlines get the center stage spot put on them for possible non-compliance with Airworthiness Directives.

[Mr_Smart]

I can sure identify with Mr Roller on the paperwork issue.
I spent a couple of years as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Unlicenced) after a transition from Diesel Mechanic.

The paperwork simply blew what was left of my mind...incredible amounts of the stuff which often seemed to exist solely to keep some executive types clear of ANY possible fallout should a mishap occur.

It was important that a clear paper-trail existed to brinmg investigators back to the lowest ranking staff member,whose ass could then be safely roasted over an open fire.

The reality is that paperwork is NOT a foolproof indicator of anything except the ability of Ink to stain paper itself.
Having worked on a wide variety of African registered B737-200`s and 727`s I came away with a healthy disregard for ANYTHING recorded on paper which I had not verified for myself !!

[Bob_Roller]

Looks like air travel in the US, is going to be quite problematic for the foreseeable future !

The FAA looks like it has turned to 'bad cop' tactics after getting their head handed to them from the governmental hearings last week.

Some co-workers watched the entire proceedings last week, and commented that the FAA looked like a bunch of buffoons during questioning.

For anyone interested in the melt down at American Airlines this week, it all is about the spacing of cable lacing cord (usually a nomex thread about .125 inches wide, and about .030 inches thick), to secure wires to themselves in a wire bundle, between clamps that secure the bundles to aircraft structure.

I have worked on  MD-80 aircraft for about 5 years, and unless you had a major fuel leak in the area, and the wires had chaffed to the point that exposed the metal conductor of the wire, this type of 'grounding' of an aircraft type, is not justifiable, in my view.

These aircraft could be worked on at night, to cause minimal disruption to the daytime flight schedule.

It could be done in less than 7 days.

The area in question has minimal exposure to fuel, there are no fuel lines around the area, and the only realistic source for fuel would be a 'sump' drain, that is located in the lower 'skin' of the wing, used to drain fuel in the center fuel tank, to check for water.

Don't be too surprised if this continues, as other airlines are brought under the microscope of the FAA.

'We're from the federal government, and we're here to help'.

If you ever hear this phrase, run fast, and run far, nothing good is going to come out of it !!