Report: Southwest flew non-airworthy aircraft

[Porsche-O-Phile]

This is pretty serious if true. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/southwest.planes/index.html

- - - - -

Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

By Drew Griffin and Scott Bronstein
CNN Special Investigations Unit

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.

Congressional documents show Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft deemed "unsafe" by federal inspectors.

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.

On Thursday, the FAA initiated actions to seek a $10.2 million civil penalty against Southwest for allegedly operating 46 airplanes without conducting mandatory checks for fuselage cracking.

"The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said Nicholas A. Sabatini, the FAA's associate administrator for aviation safety, in a written statement.

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.

"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 nation's "Whistle-Blower Protection Program" protects federal employees from being fired or retaliated against by their employer.

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.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, told CNN that the administration has taken action and that a supervisor who was in charge of overseeing Southwest is "no longer in a supervisory position."

The FAA's announcement that it would seek civil penalties against Southwest came after news of the congressional reports became public.

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."

In a news release Thursday afternoon, the FAA said Southwest operated 46 Boeing 737s on nearly 60,000 flights between June 2006 and March 2007 while failing to comply with an FAA directive that requires repeated checks of fuselage areas to detect fatigue cracking.

The FAA alleges that, after Southwest discovered it had failed to comply, it continued to operate the same planes on an additional 1,451 flights. The airline later found that six of the 46 planes had fatigue cracks, the FAA said.

"We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action," the FAA's Sabatini said in the statement.

Southwest has 30 days to respond to the agency.

The documents show Southwest voluntarily disclosed some of the missed inspections last spring. Earlier, Southwest 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.

[strupgolf]

So what's new about this, it's happened since we started to fly. Wont change my plans.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I guess I'll just fly America West from now on. Shoot, at least they only fly drunk, but the planes are well-maintained.

[nostatic]

but you get free peanuts

[jorian]

Not to put too a fine of a point on it BUT, the majority of the violations are for missing time certification checks. The planes were not necessarily unsafe, they missed mandatory inspections. The media would have everyone believe that Southwest was selling tickets on deathtraps about to fall from the sky. It doesn't excuse missing the inspections but a little perspective would be nice.

[JavaBrewer]

Call me an optimist but I doubt a flight crew would put their own lives at risk flying a plane they did not believe was safe. They have wives and kids too.

[Jim Sims]

Here we thought SWA was making a profit while other airlines were losing money because they were a well-run organization, bought fuel futures, paid their employees less, etc. Seems there was more (less?) to it. In addition to the 10.3 million dollar fine perhaps some prison time is warranted for a chief mechanic or equivalent and a vice president or two plus a couple of FFA personnel. Time to reduce the temptation to cheat and make a profit.

[mattdavis11]

Who inspects the planes? The FAA right? Who's fault is it that the planes were still flying without certs? The inspectors fuched up, they didn't do their job. So now they get whistle blower status to keep their jobs! Bull$hit, total and complete bull$hit. SWA basically turns themselves and the inspector supervisors in, and SWA gets hammered.

Fuch the FAA, we ought to fine their sorry asses for allowing it. $10.2 million going to the gov't for something they couldn't uncover, that just pisses me off.

[Joeaksa]

Jeff,

You are a pilot, or was in the past. Why do you grandstand with a thread like this? I can almost guarantee that I can find something wrong with every airplane in the air. Airplanes are so overbuilt and certified with "double or triple everything" that its not an issue in 99.999% of the flights. They sure are a hell of a lot safer than most of the cars on the road.

SWA takes better care of their fleet than most any of the other airlines. You want to fly in AmWorst, then pls feel free as they and their new sibling US Scare are among the worst.

Dave,

You are correct, if there really was a safety issue, the flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew) would not get on the airplanes. This is govt (and Jeff) grandstanding and thumping their chest trying to show how great they by keeping the public safe IMHO.

Joe

[onewhippedpuppy]

Missing mandatory inspections is not a trivial deal, but it's also not a pressing safety of flight issue. It's not as if they flew the aircraft knowing that they were facing imminent failure. Pretty sad that the FAA gets a pass on this one, they are just as much to blame.

SWA has a pretty good name among pilots, I put their opinion far and above that of the poorly informed media. I will still fly with them.

[Moses]

Southwest remains my airline of choice.

While I agree that it's important to get your "TPS REPORTS" filed in a timely fashion, I highly doubt SWA would put compromised aircraft in the sky to save a few bucks.

SWA is still my first choice when I fly.

[Jim Sims]

The "normalization of deviance" is a slippery slope. NASA got burned and so will the airlines and FAA (and the flying public) if they fail to take strong measures to arrest the the tendency to cut corners. Flying is very safe because of all the redundancies - they should be jealously defended; not rationalized away.

From a US Navy operational lecture on the topic:

The loss of the shuttles Columbia and Challenger all too clearly illustrate how these natural tendencies can become disastrous. The Navy can learn a lot from these events to prevent future catastrophes. Both the shuttles were vulnerable because of a sinister phenomenon called "normalization of deviance," which occurs as individuals or teams repeatedly accept a lower standard of performance until that lower standard becomes the norm. Usually, this occurs because the people are under pressure (e.g., budget or schedule) and perceive it will be too hard to comply with the original higher standard. They may intend to revert to the higher standard when the stressful period passes. However, by getting away with the lower standard, it is likely they will do the same thing when the same stressful circumstances arise again. Over time, they stop seeing their actions as deviant or hazardous.

[cgarr]

"quote"On Thursday, the FAA initiated actions to seek a $10.2 million civil penalty against Southwest for allegedly operating 46 airplanes without conducting mandatory checks for fuselage cracking."

There ya go, follow the money! If it was really about safety they would shut them down, I guess the 10.2 million is making them safe to fly now?

[Superman]

This report cannot possibly be true. The airline industry is deregulated. That means we can all be fully confident that airline decisions are consistent with our best interests.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Superman

This report cannot possibly be true. The airline industry is deregulated. That means we can all be fully confident that airline decisions are consistent with our best interests.

Keep drinking that koolaid!

[the]

Originally Posted by Superman

This report cannot possibly be true. The airline industry is deregulated. That means we can all be fully confident that airline decisions are consistent with our best interests.

Airline safety has been deregulated?

Someone better advise the thousands of employees, inspectors, regulators, lawyers, administrators etc. etc. etc. of the Federal Aviation Agency that they should not show up for work on Monday.

[nostatic]

but you get free peanuts

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Just think it's an interesting story. FWIW (as has been said) I doubt many flight crews would ever knowingly fly an aircraft they suspected to be unsafe. Unless training has done a COMPLETE 180 since I flew a few years back, the "correct" answer is always to decline the flight if there's any doubt. I agree though, the pilot in command can't always be aware of every single thing on the aircraft before the flight. During preflight inspection, you check certain "known" wear items, obvious things like fuel & oil levels, control surface operation, etc. You can't know the condition of every single bolt, rivet, weld and wire inside the aircraft. Past a certain point, you have to trust your team and your ground crews that the inspections have been complied with and they're looking out for you. That's where the breakdown occurred in this case, from the sound of it.

If I were an SWA pilot, I'd be pretty fuming mad about this today. . . Just because an inspection doesn't get performed on time doesn't mean the airplane will fall out of the sky, but it's more liability for you (you're Pilot-In-Command) and certainly it is more risk you're being exposed to.

[Joeaksa]

Well, guess what? Now Boeing says that it agreed with what SWA did... course what do they know, they just build the things...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Boeing Defends Southwest

Boeing is leaping to the defense of its biggest customer, issuing a statement saying it agreed with Southwest Airlines’ plan to continue flying 46 older 737s that hadn’t been inspected for specific fatigue cracks.

“In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised,” Boeing said in a statement released late Thursday, a day after the FAA proposed fines of $10.2 million against the airline. $10 million of that fine is to be levied for 1,451 flights conducted on the 46 737-300s after Southwest blew the whistle on itself for not carrying out the fatigue crack inspections during the previous year.

After discovering the lapse in inspections and reporting it to the FAA, the airline reinspected the aircraft and found six with small cracks, which were repaired. However, the aircraft remained in service during the 10 days it took to inspect them and that’s what the FAA is so cranky about.

"The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said Nick Sabatini, the agency's associate administrator for safety. "We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action."

Southwest, perhaps with some justification, is pointing out that it discovered the error itself and moved to fix the problem as soon as it could. Before launching any of the 46 aircraft involved, it checked with Boeing to see if that posed a potential hazard.

“Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of their technical opinion that the continued operation of their Classic 737s, for up to ten days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue,” Boeing said in a statement. “

Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded the 10-day compliance plan was technically valid.”

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1067-full.html#197323

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

The "normalization of deviance" is a slippery slope. NASA got burned and so will the airlines and FAA (and the flying public) if they fail to take strong measures to arrest the the tendency to cut corners. Flying is very safe because of all the redundancies - they should be jealously defended; not rationalized away.

From a US Navy operational lecture on the topic:

The loss of the shuttles Columbia and Challenger all too clearly illustrate how these natural tendencies can become disastrous. The Navy can learn a lot from these events to prevent future catastrophes. Both the shuttles were vulnerable because of a sinister phenomenon called "normalization of deviance," which occurs as individuals or teams repeatedly accept a lower standard of performance until that lower standard becomes the norm. Usually, this occurs because the people are under pressure (e.g., budget or schedule) and perceive it will be too hard to comply with the original higher standard. They may intend to revert to the higher standard when the stressful period passes. However, by getting away with the lower standard, it is likely they will do the same thing when the same stressful circumstances arise again. Over time, they stop seeing their actions as deviant or hazardous.

Thanks, Jim, for the most salient post on this thread.

If the applicable regulations are too strict, there are avenues through which they can be changed. Here we see a classic case of a large business in knowing violation of some fairly important regulations, seeking forgiveness after the fact. The old adage "it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission" is at play.

It was purely a financial decision on their part. Weighing the cost of compliance against potential fines, they made the very cynical decision to pay the fines when they got "caught". Then, predicting leniency (another calculated business gamble), they elected to turn themselves in. It seems to have worked.

$10.2 million dollars??!!! For a business the size of Southwest Airlines? What a freakin' joke. Damn good thing (for them) Max Mosely doesn't run the FAA... Southwest needs to be fined enough to make it really hurt. Enough so it is no longer a "business decision" as to whether they comply or wait for a slap on the wrist fine. Enough to possibly drive them out of business... And make other airlines sit up and take notice... All we see accomplished here, from this fine, is to encourage other airlines to make the same decisions.