Would you be any less dead if your flight crashed due to negligence rather than a deliberate action?
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.
Bad for Southwest, then.
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.
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.
MidWAY
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
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?
Except, apparently, for some former employees in the Dallas office…
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?
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.
Bad for Southwest, then.
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.
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.
MidWAY
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.
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
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?
Except, apparently, for some former employees in the Dallas office…
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?
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.
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,
A September 2004 requirement hardly qualifies as new.
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.”
Keyword former.
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.
You’re right, but again, Southwest does have its own responsibility to make sure its planes are safe–with or without FAA approval.
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.
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.
No way I’d board a plane if I knew it had a 4" crack in its fuselage.
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.