# FAA gives Southwest pass on safety violations **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 6, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346 "2008-03-06T17:46:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/21 "2008-03-10T13:24:16Z")
[QUOTE=gravitycrash] Yes, it is a good business model for Southwest planes to start falling from the skies. Please get a grip people. Why would they do this? To save money? You are aware how much media attention happens when a airliner crashes…right? It looks to me that it was an oversight but that doesn’t excuse it. I’ll be flying with Southwest next week and feel as safe as with any other airline. [/QUOTE] Would you be any less dead if your flight crashed due to negligence rather than a deliberate action? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/22 "2008-03-10T14:12:41Z")
[QUOTE=Merijeek] Well, industry is all perfectly self-regulating, so the free marking will fix it. I’m sure we’ll never have such an incident again. -Joe [/QUOTE] It is, actually. One of the things that put Pan Am, formerly our nation’s flag carrier, out of business was the perception that they were unsafe. People stopped flying them, and for all of their storied history they collapsed. This is going to hurt Southwest, and they surely knew it would, which is why they self-reported it. That’s the first step in trying to maintain a positive public image: damage control. People will not fly an airline if they believe (irrationally, for the most part) that they will die if they fly on their planes. This is why airlines do so much with regard to safety. I don’t see any reason to assume that this was anything more than a mistake, and Southwest is already paying for it, both in terms of money and reputation. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/23 "2008-03-10T14:18:00Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I doubt this story will get a lot of interest here per se, but it’s come out that Southwest was allowed to continue operating planes by the FAA despite some FAA officials being aware that these planes had missed mandatory safety inspections. These planes had not undergone mandatory inspections, and by FAA regulations should have been grounded. [/quote] Bad for Southwest, then. > [@](#): > > It looks at least possible from the article that some higher-ups in the FAA May have let Southwest miss these deadlines and continue operating the aircraft, implying possible legal implications for those FAA officials. THAT actually worries me more than Southwest being late on inspections. Inspections, you see, are intended to catch problems _well in advance_ of becoming major catastrophes. Is it ever good to miss or delay and inspection? No - but airplanes undergo so many routine inspections that if one is skipped (regardless of reason) it is highly unlikely that Bad Things will result. FAA people giving people a pass to continue flying when they shouldn’t - THAT’s a huge problem. Think about it - it might not just be Southwest who’s getting the free pass to fly. Bad enough if it’s just Southwest, but their safety record is such that it’s unlikely this is going to be the final weak link that causes an accident. Other airlines, however, do not have such good records - note that all the other 737 crashes noted in the linked articles were on airlines other than Southwest. > [@](#): > > It is worth mentioning that when the U.S. airline industry was losing billions of dollars, Southwest was the only carrier to continue operating at a profit. In fact I believe (though this may no longer be true) that Southwest has recorded a net profit every quarter of every year since the late 1970s. Last I heard, this was still true. However, I don’t think the money “saved” from these delayed inspections, or obtained from the illicit flights, is sufficient to account for Southwest being in the black. > [@](#): > > They’ve also never had a crash–although they did have one accident at Chicago Midland a few years ago. Mid **WAY** I suppose I could get picky and point out that, technically, the fatal crash did not occur at the airport but rather at a road intersection adjacent to the airport. In addition to pilot error (unconnected to maintenance inspections) the weather and safety hazards at the airport were also very much major contributing factors to that fatality. Specifically, landing downwind in a major snowstorm, on a runway of minimal length for a 737, in slick conditions, and inadequate space between the end of the runway and the roads surrounding the airport. [quote=atomicbadgerrace] You can point fingers at the FAA for giving them the thumbs up (albeit erroneously) all you want, but the fact is, if your plane is in violation of published guidelines, you ground it. Period. No ifs ands or buts. [quote] Oh, really? So all those new and updated AD’s I’ve seen with “you have until X date to comply” don’t exist? I am not privy to the particulars of this case but if you are in the maintenance area of aviation you know as well as I do that _new_ directives certainly can grant a time period for compliance. I don’t know if that was the case here, but given the number of 737’s flying, post the Aloha Airlines flight where part of the fuselage ripped away in flight, grounding the entire fleet would have had serious repercussions. Gee, maybe that’s why they started with the oldest 737’s first and worked their way forward. It sounds to me like there were some Southwest airplanes that aged into the inspection range that weren’t caught promptly, possibly because it was a relatively new requirement. Maybe that’s why Southwest went to the FAA, self-disclosed, and asked these now “no longer in Dallas” FAA people “what do we do to make this right?” which is _exactly what they should have done_ once the error/missed maintenance was found. **IF** the FAA guys said they could continue flying until inspections were completed then I think most of the onus is on the FAA staff involved > [@](#): > > No calls to the FAA to ask for clarification – that’s something you ask for while you’re making those inspections. WTF? _Of course_ you call the FAA for clarification if you have questions about a new requirement. _Of course_ you call the FAA if you’ve discovered a problem and want advice on how to resolve it. Or do you honestly think it would have been better for Southwest to have said nothing at all? > [@](#): > > The FAA and the DOT are incredibly picky about safety, Except, apparently, for some former employees in the Dallas office… > [@](#): > > …and anyone working in aircraft maintenance knows that you don’t go against any safety mandate without having something to the contrary in hand. And… apparently Southwest when to the FAA in Dallas _for exactly that_ - something “in hand”. Preferably in writing, of course, you always want these things in writing, but none of the articles mention if this was a verbal or written OK. Oh, please - you know as well as I do that while the majority of the folks at the FAA are good, hardworking folks trying to do the right thing the agency has its share of bad apples. That’s what worries me - Southwest is just one company, bad FAA officials touch _many_ companies. IF it’s a case of rot at the FAA how much other bad advice did these guys give out? > [@](#): > > Edit: It’s worth mentioning that the Wall Street Journal has reported that Southwest voluntarily disclosed this information to the FAA some months ago, and that the FAA was okay with Southwest’s actions at the time. But now it looks like they may be pursuing fines against the airline which could range from $3m-10m. Politics Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Oberstar, from Minnesota, buddy-buddies with Northwest airlines, which is based in Minnesota? And isn’t doing quite so well, with one thing and another (including drunk pilots and one a few years ago that simply dropped dead mid-flight). Gee, yeah, let’s punish a rival company that did the right thing by coming clean on a violation on its own and soak it for a few million, publicize it, scare away some customers that maybe Northwest can pick up… Ask yourself why Oberstar is pushing so hard to punish Southwest. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/24 "2008-03-10T14:21:39Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I doubt this story will get a lot of interest here per se, but it’s come out that Southwest was allowed to continue operating planes by the FAA despite some FAA officials being aware that these planes had missed mandatory safety inspections. These planes had not undergone mandatory inspections, and by FAA regulations should have been grounded. [/quote] Bad for Southwest, then. > [@](#): > > It looks at least possible from the article that some higher-ups in the FAA May have let Southwest miss these deadlines and continue operating the aircraft, implying possible legal implications for those FAA officials. THAT actually worries me more than Southwest being late on inspections. Inspections, you see, are intended to catch problems _well in advance_ of becoming major catastrophes. Is it ever good to miss or delay and inspection? No - but airplanes undergo so many routine inspections that if one is skipped (regardless of reason) it is highly unlikely that Bad Things will result. FAA people giving people a pass to continue flying when they shouldn’t - THAT’s a huge problem. Think about it - it might not just be Southwest who’s getting the free pass to fly. Bad enough if it’s just Southwest, but their safety record is such that it’s unlikely this is going to be the final weak link that causes an accident. Other airlines, however, do not have such good records - note that all the other 737 crashes noted in the linked articles were on airlines other than Southwest. > [@](#): > > It is worth mentioning that when the U.S. airline industry was losing billions of dollars, Southwest was the only carrier to continue operating at a profit. In fact I believe (though this may no longer be true) that Southwest has recorded a net profit every quarter of every year since the late 1970s. Last I heard, this was still true. However, I don’t think the money “saved” from these delayed inspections, or obtained from the illicit flights, is sufficient to account for Southwest being in the black. > [@](#): > > They’ve also never had a crash–although they did have one accident at Chicago Midland a few years ago. Mid **WAY** I suppose I could get picky and point out that, technically, the fatal crash did not occur at the airport but rather at a road intersection adjacent to the airport. In addition to pilot error (unconnected to maintenance inspections) the weather and safety hazards at the airport were also very much major contributing factors to that fatality. Specifically, landing downwind in a major snowstorm, on a runway of minimal length for a 737, in slick conditions, and inadequate space between the end of the runway and the roads surrounding the airport. > [@atomicbadgerrace](#): > > You can point fingers at the FAA for giving them the thumbs up (albeit erroneously) all you want, but the fact is, if your plane is in violation of published guidelines, you ground it. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Oh, really? So all those new and updated AD’s I’ve seen with “you have until X date to comply” don’t exist? I am not privy to the particulars of this case but if you are in the maintenance area of aviation you know as well as I do that _new_ directives certainly can grant a time period for compliance. I don’t know if that was the case here, but given the number of 737’s flying, post the Aloha Airlines flight where part of the fuselage ripped away in flight, grounding the entire fleet would have had serious repercussions. Gee, maybe that’s why they started with the oldest 737’s first and worked their way forward. It sounds to me like there were some Southwest airplanes that aged into the inspection range that weren’t caught promptly, possibly because it was a relatively new requirement. Maybe that’s why Southwest went to the FAA, self-disclosed, and asked these now “no longer in Dallas” FAA people “what do we do to make this right?” which is _exactly what they should have done_ once the error/missed maintenance was found. **IF** the FAA guys said they could continue flying until inspections were completed then I think most of the onus is on the FAA staff involved > [@](#): > > No calls to the FAA to ask for clarification – that’s something you ask for while you’re making those inspections. WTF? _Of course_ you call the FAA for clarification if you have questions about a new requirement. _Of course_ you call the FAA if you’ve discovered a problem and want advice on how to resolve it. Or do you honestly think it would have been better for Southwest to have said nothing at all? > [@](#): > > The FAA and the DOT are incredibly picky about safety, Except, apparently, for some former employees in the Dallas office… > [@](#): > > …and anyone working in aircraft maintenance knows that you don’t go against any safety mandate without having something to the contrary in hand. And… apparently Southwest went to the FAA in Dallas _for exactly that_ - something “in hand”. Preferably in writing, of course, you always want these things in writing, but none of the articles mention if this was a verbal or written OK. Oh, please - you know as well as I do that while the majority of the folks at the FAA are good, hardworking folks trying to do the right thing the agency has its share of bad apples. That’s what worries me - Southwest is just one company, bad FAA officials touch _many_ companies. IF it’s a case of rot at the FAA how much other bad advice did these guys give out? > [@](#): > > Edit: It’s worth mentioning that the Wall Street Journal has reported that Southwest voluntarily disclosed this information to the FAA some months ago, and that the FAA was okay with Southwest’s actions at the time. But now it looks like they may be pursuing fines against the airline which could range from $3m-10m. Politics Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Oberstar, from Minnesota, buddy-buddies with Northwest airlines, which is based in Minnesota? And isn’t doing quite so well, with one thing and another (including drunk pilots and one a few years ago that simply dropped dead mid-flight). Gee, yeah, let’s punish a rival company that did the right thing by coming clean on a violation on its own and soak it for a few million, publicize it, scare away some customers that maybe Northwest can pick up… Ask yourself why Oberstar is pushing so hard to punish Southwest. ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/25 "2008-03-10T18:57:00Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] Oh, really? So all those new and updated AD’s I’ve seen with “you have until X date to comply” don’t exist? I am not privy to the particulars of this case but if you are in the maintenance area of aviation you know as well as I do that _new_ directives certainly can grant a time period for compliance. I don’t know if that was the case here, but given the number of 737’s flying, post the Aloha Airlines flight where part of the fuselage ripped away in flight, grounding the entire fleet would have had serious repercussions. Gee, maybe that’s why they started with the oldest 737’s first and worked their way forward. It sounds to me like there were some Southwest airplanes that aged into the inspection range that weren’t caught promptly, possibly because it was a relatively new requirement. Maybe that’s why Southwest went to the FAA, self-disclosed, and asked these now “no longer in Dallas” FAA people “what do we do to make this right?” which is _exactly what they should have done_ once the error/missed maintenance was found. **IF** the FAA guys said they could continue flying until inspections were completed then I think most of the onus is on the FAA staff involved [/QUOTE] Sorry, no. By admitting that they were aware of missed maintenance schedules, Southwest takes the blame for continuing to fly, regardless of whether “two Dallas people” say it’s okay. You don’t fly your aircraft if they’re behind on maintenance, period. To quote **D-bear** in this thread, > [@](#): > > Some one in their mx department demonstrated a horrible lack of judgement after they discovered they missed these inspections on the fleet and decided to let the fleet fly while they caught up. > > Even if they assumed it was okay with the FAA. > [@](#): > > WTF? _Of course_ you call the FAA for clarification if you have questions about a new requirement. A September 2004 requirement hardly qualifies as new. > [@](#): > > _Of course_ you call the FAA if you’ve discovered a problem and want advice on how to resolve it. Or do you honestly think it would have been better for Southwest to have said nothing at all? No, it’s good that Southwest said something. It’s bad that they kept flying. Advice on how to resolve it? Ground your planes and inspect them ASAP. That’s called common sense, especially when damage is visible. Sounds more like Southwest called to say they missed inspection deadlines, but “we promise to fix them soon if we can keep flying these planes.” > [@](#): > > Except, apparently, for some former employees in the Dallas office… Keyword former. > [@](#): > > And… apparently Southwest went to the FAA in Dallas _for exactly that_ - something “in hand”. Preferably in writing, of course, you always want these things in writing, but none of the articles mention if this was a verbal or written OK. Exploiting the poor judgement of two FAA inspectors to justify continuing to fly planes you knew were behind on mx doesn’t make it any better. > [@](#): > > Oh, please - you know as well as I do that while the majority of the folks at the FAA are good, hardworking folks trying to do the right thing the agency has its share of bad apples. That’s what worries me - Southwest is just one company, bad FAA officials touch _many_ companies. IF it’s a case of rot at the FAA how much other bad advice did these guys give out? You’re right, but again, Southwest does have its own responsibility to make sure its planes are safe–with or without FAA approval. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2008, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/26 "2008-03-11T13:35:13Z")
[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace] A September 2004 requirement hardly qualifies as new. [/quote] I found the timelines given in the articles to be somewhat vague and confusing. If the violation in occurred in, say December 2004 that’s one thing - if it happened last week it’s another. One of the articles says “March” but does not specify a year. Until I see consistent and specific dates there is still some ambiguity. And, by the way - I’m not saying Southwest is blameless here. They really could have exercised better judgment. but any punishment received should be free of political BS. > [@](#): > > Exploiting the poor judgement of two FAA inspectors to justify continuing to fly planes you knew were behind on mx doesn’t make it any better. No, but people are like that, whether they should be or not, and that is one of the reasons we must have firm regulations in place. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/27 "2008-03-11T13:58:31Z")
No way I’d board a plane if I knew it had a 4" crack in its fuselage. ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346/28 "2008-03-11T17:47:03Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] I found the timelines given in the articles to be somewhat vague and confusing. If the violation in occurred in, say December 2004 that’s one thing - if it happened last week it’s another. One of the articles says “March” but does not specify a year. Until I see consistent and specific dates there is still some ambiguity. [/QUOTE] I found the articles to be quite clear. The regulations were issued in September of 2004; that much has been consistent. The violations occured in “March of last year,” the majority report. You can pretty much assume that means March of 2007. I’ll have to check with some friends at WN, but from the rumor mill at work, this is the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faa-gives-southwest-pass-on-safety-violations/440346.md?page=1)