FAA Airworthiness *grumbles*

[noel.wade]

Don't know if you all have seen this article yet:

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

There's more to this article than just panicking the public here in
the USA (and possibly elsewhere)...

To me, its quite possibly the most blatant evidence ever, showing the
undue influence that the airlines have on the FAA.

Could you imagine the immediate legal action and penalties that would
be imposed on a soaring operation or a private owner, if it was
discovered that they took paying passengers up in aircraft that were
in violation of ADs?

*sigh* I seriously hope the oversight committees take a long hard
look at this...

--Noel

[[email protected]]

Actually, they are already leveling a fine (unjustly) against
Southwest. From today's WSJ:

The Federal Aviation Administration, imposing the largest financial
punishment against an airline in about two decades, proposed a $10.2
million civil penalty against Southwest Airlines Co. for flying
passengers in 46 of its planes without complying with mandatory
inspections to check for possible structural cracks.

"The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to
follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said
FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nicholas A. Sabatini.
"We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA
directives and take corrective action."

According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of
passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without
complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for
fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline
received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep
operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the
carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the
inspections.

The FAA said the size of the penalty "reflects the serious nature of
those deliberate violations." Southwest has 30 days to appeal.

So, Southwest realized it was in error and had not properly inspected
for ADs. It informs the FAA who say go ahead and keep flying, so
Southwest follows the verbal directions of the FAA. Then the FAA
comes back and slaps them with a $10MM fine. Honestly, thats
rediculous. They are getting fined for doing what the FAA told them
to do. How would you like it if you were told to go ahead and keep
flying your glider while waiting to be able to perform an AD, and then
later, after performing the AD, get slapped with a fine? The villian
here is bureaucratic double-talk. Wouldn't be at all suprised if
Southwest wins this one in the courts.


On Mar 6, 3:40*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Don't know if you all have seen this article yet:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/southwest.planes/index.html
>
> There's more to this article than just panicking the public here in
> the USA (and possibly elsewhere)...
>
> To me, its quite possibly the most blatant evidence ever, showing the
> undue influence that the airlines have on the FAA.
>
> Could you imagine the immediate legal action and penalties that would
> be imposed on a soaring operation or a private owner, if it was
> discovered that they took paying passengers up in aircraft that were
> in violation of ADs?
>
> *sigh* *I seriously hope the oversight committees take a long hard
> look at this...
>
> --Noel

[noel.wade]

Kevin -

The FAA response to keep flying is exactly what I have a problem
with... What private owner or small FBO has the FAA tell them "its OK
to keep flying, even though you're in violation of ADs"?? But for an
airline, someone in the FAA thinks its alright to give 'em a pass.

I may only be 30 years old, but I'm old-fashioned. If you make a rule
and say its universal, then you sure as heck oughta apply it to
everyone equally, and hold everyone equally accountable.

We'll see how it all shakes out...

--Noel


On Mar 6, 1:55*pm, "
> wrote:
> So, Southwest realized it was in error and had not properly inspected
> for ADs. *It informs the FAA who say go ahead and keep flying, so
> Southwest follows the verbal directions of the FAA. *Then the FAA
> comes back and slaps them with a $10MM fine. *Honestly, thats
> rediculous. *They are getting fined for doing what the FAA told them
> to do. *How would you like it if you were told to go ahead and keep
> flying your glider while waiting to be able to perform an AD, and then
> later, after performing the AD, get slapped with a fine? *The villian
> here is bureaucratic double-talk. *Wouldn't be at all suprised if
> Southwest wins this one in the courts.

[K Baum]

On Mar 6, 8:46*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> I may only be 30 years old, but I'm old-fashioned. *If you make a rule
> and say its universal, then you sure as heck oughta apply it to
> everyone equally, and hold everyone equally accountable.
>
> --Noel
>
Noel, one thing to remember is that these FAA rulings are highly
politisized. The FAA is under the NTSB which is subject to pressure
from piloticans in Southwest's home state of Texas. The rules (Or
thier interpritaion ) are already very lax for SWA.
Another thing the FAA does is to try to encourage compliance with the
least amount of disruption in service. This is where SWA took
advantage of the situation and is a big part of why they are facing
such a stiff penalty. The last carrier to face a muli milloin $$$
penalty was America West after they pencil whipped a letter
inspection.
Just remember when you fly a LCC you are ussually getting what you pay
for.
Frank

[Tony Verhulst]

K Baum wrote:
> ....The FAA is under the NTSB.....


It may seem like that but it ain't so. The FAA is under the
Department of Transportation (see
http://www.faa.gov/about/history/brief%5Fhistory/). The NTSB is an
independent agency (See http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm.

Tony V

[[email protected]]

First, the FAA is under the Department of Transportation (DOT). The
NTSB is an independent government agency. What the NTSB recommends,
the FAA doesn't have to do (actually, no one has to do what they
recommend - might be a good idea but...) The FAA has a dual charter -
promote aviation safety and promote aviation commerce. Guess what?
They conflict sometime! So now you get into the "is the risk worth
the benefit" discussion. "Let's have perfect safety" Okay, all
planes are grounded forever and we won't have any accidents. Nah,
that won't work. "Let's make as much money as possible" Okay, no
restrictions do what you want. That's not any better. Now for this
case. The jets missed inspections. These are inspections for
specific things in finite areas. They have been regularly inspected
in a ton of other areas the entire time and someone has probably
looked at the skin where the cracks might be, just not in accordance
with the AD. After it was "discovered" that the inspections were not
complied with, they got them done in a week without grounding all of
them and canceling the flight plans of thousands of travelers. To
someone it sounded like a reasonable level of risk. I don't remember
any Southwest accidents last April so I guess it worked out okay.
I'll let maintenance professionals decide whether it was a good
decision or not (inside and outside of the FAA).

The issue here is what breakdown allowed the inspections to be missed
and who's responsible. There's the side issue of self disclosure.
Sounds like an FAA inspector found something, then Southwest found
more and disclosed. I don't know about you but if I miss an AD, I'm
not going to trot down to the FSDO and help them fill out the
violation paperwork. If Southwest knew about it, didn't say anything,
then tried to hide behind self disclosure when someone caught on (I
personally doubt that) then nail them to the wall. But if you nail
them for disclosing about an honest mistake you're sending a message -
don't disclose, cover up your mistakes. Sensationalizing the whole
thing in the press (and here) without all the facts (boring details)
doesn't do anyone any good.

About interpretation of rules for SWA. I have a lot of friends that
fly for Southwest. They are very good and very professional. If
their jets were not well maintained, they would squawk about it. Hey,
we're pilots, that's what we do. I don't hear any of that from them.
The rules are the same for everyone, they are enforced as equally as
is humanly possible. Yes, folks at the FAA are human so you will get
different decisions sometimes but at the FSDO level it's probably not
"politically" motivated.

Getting off my soap box now.

Reb
airline pilot for boxes

>
> Noel, one thing to remember is that these FAA rulings are highly
> politisized. The FAA is under the NTSB which is subject to pressure
> from piloticans in Southwest's home state of Texas. The rules (Or
> thier interpritaion ) are already very lax for SWA.
> Another thing the FAA does is to try to encourage compliance with the
> least amount of disruption in service. This is where SWA took
> advantage of the situation and is a big part of why they are facing
> such a stiff penalty. The last carrier to face a muli milloin $$$
> penalty was America West after they pencil whipped a letter
> inspection.
> Just remember when you fly a LCC you are ussually getting what you pay
> for.
> Frank

[K Baum]

>
> About interpretation of rules for SWA. *I have a lot of friends that
> fly for Southwest. *They are very good and very professional. *If
> their jets were not well maintained, they would squawk about it. *Hey,
> we're pilots, that's what we do. *I don't hear any of that from them.
> The rules are the same for everyone, they are enforced as equally as
> is humanly possible. *Yes, folks at the FAA are human so you will get
> different decisions sometimes but at the FSDO level it's probably not
> "politically" motivated.

Reb, sorry about the FAA/DOT thing. Thats what I meant to post but it
was early in the morning. I have been in the biz for 20 years and have
many friends over at SWA including a good soaring buddy and all of
them would be the first to admit they have a bunch of cowboys at SWA.
The rules are administered by A POI for each certificate holder and
the interpritaions vary wildly from airline to airline. If you need
proof of this just take a look at some of the stuff that goes on at
JetBlue. I never siad anything about the "FSDO" level and you can rest
assured that Congressmen put plenty of influence on the DOT.
> Getting off my soap box now.
Thanks
>
> Reb
F Baum

[Eric Greenwell]

K Baum wrote:

> Just remember when you fly a LCC you are ussually getting what you pay
> for.
> Frank

I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[K Baum]

On Mar 7, 9:40*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
> getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
> getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
> record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?
>
EG, this is a good question. I dont have much time to answer right now
but I will tell you this much; There are differing levels of
Regulatory compliance, operational oversight, maintenence standards,
training standards etc.. All the airlines fly the same planes, pay
similar wages, use the same fuel, and so on, so when you come across a
carrier that charges substantially less than all the rest, consider
that discount has to come from somewhere. I have jumpseated on SWA
flights and I have seen stuff on a regular basis that would get one of
our crews fired (Or at least some time off). Another good example of
cutting corners is the De/AntiIce procedures and policies. The next
time you are at the field during a snow storm take a look out the
window at SWA,s practices verses the other airlines. It may save alot
of time to cut corners in this area, but if one of their jets ever has
an engine problem on climbout that 89 dollar ticket isnt gonna seem
like such a bargain. This is one of the biggest complaints that my SWA
buddies have with the place.
Gotta run,
FB

[max-gross]

Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
It speaks for itself. Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

[J a c k]

max-gross wrote:
> Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
> It speaks for itself. Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
> too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
> SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. Wait till all
> the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
> safety of SWA operations.



Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.



Jack

[max-gross]

On Mar 7, 8:58*pm, J a c k > wrote:
> max-gross wrote:
> > Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
> > It speaks for itself. *Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
> > too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
> > SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. *Wait till all
> > the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
> > safety of SWA operations.
>
> Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
> community, they do real well.
>
> Jack

Not to be morbid, but I was talking more about body count. I'm not
going to post the numbers here, do your own research.

[Tony Verhulst]

J a c k wrote:
> .....Wait till all
>> the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
>> safety of SWA operations.
>
> Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
> community, they do real well.

Yeah, that happened *once*. Not to defend their actions but show me
*any* major airline with a better record - Qantas, maybe.

Tony

[noel.wade]

Dang, this has gotten WAY away from the topic I intended it to be. My
point had _nothing_ to do with SWA itself. It had everything to do
with the FAA giving a "pass" on inspections and AD compliance to an
airline, to help "minimize impact" on their for-profit-business. And
to be clear: there's nothing wrong with a company seeking to make a
profit for providing a service.

But a gov't organization "giving a pass" on safety-related issues to
that company (when they would NEVER allow for a private operator or
small / non-influential business) disgusts me.

--Noel

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 9:12*am, K Baum > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:40*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:> I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
> > getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
> > getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
> > record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?
>
> EG, this is a good question. I dont have much time to answer right now
> but I will tell you this much; There are differing levels of
> Regulatory compliance, operational oversight, maintenence standards,
> training standards etc.. All the airlines fly the same planes, pay
> similar wages, use the same fuel, and so on, so when you come across a
> carrier that charges substantially less than all the rest, consider
> that discount has to come from somewhere. I have jumpseated on SWA
> flights and I have seen stuff on a regular basis that would get one of
> our crews fired (Or at least some time off). Another good example of
> cutting corners is the De/AntiIce procedures and policies. The next
> time you are at the field during a snow storm take a look out the
> window at SWA,s practices verses the other airlines. It may save alot
> of time to cut corners in this area, but if one of their jets ever has
> an engine problem on climbout that 89 dollar ticket isnt gonna seem
> like such a bargain. This is one of the biggest complaints that my SWA
> buddies have with the place.
> Gotta run,
> FB

The fatalities per million flights stats would confirm that SWA is
safer than only a few US airlines, namely: Alaska, Aloha, American,
Continental, Delta, Midwest Express, Northwest, United and US
Airways. Jet Blue also hasn't killed anyone - but they haven't flown
nearly as many trips as SWA.

The argument that SWA's cheaper tickets come out of maintenance costs
flies in the face of the most strightforward analysis. For airlines
operating 737-800s (Continental, American, Delta, Sun Country, ATA,
Alaska) the average total operating cost is: 43% fuel, 23% a/c
financing, 18% crew and 9% direct maitenance. SWA can't cut enough
maintenance corners to make a difference in ticket price. The way
they get lower costs is by flying more trips per aircraft per year and
per crew per year. They do this because the have a far more efficient
operating model (all point to point flying, faster boarding, keeping
cews and a/c together to minimize the impact of disruptions) and less
onerous crew work rules leading to more flight hours per FAA "clocked"
hour - work rules at other carriers encourage building up non-
productive time to increase the number of union-dues-paying pilots
required per flight hour. None of these differences affects safety,
and some may in fact enhance safety.

No, I'm not excusing their skipping inspections - but apparently they
do less meaningful corner-cutting than most - at least according to
the actual facts.

9B

[K Baum]

On Mar 8, 1:29*am, wrote:
>
> The fatalities per million flights stats would confirm that SWA is
> safer than only a few US airlines, namely: Alaska, Aloha, American,
> Continental, Delta, Midwest Express, Northwest, United and US
> Airways. *

??????????????????? Apples/Oranges. Take a look at the safety related
incidents that get reported every year and you will get a much clearer
picture. One of the biggest complaints that I have heard from pilots
at LCC's is the stuff that goes unreported.
>
> The argument that SWA's cheaper tickets come out of maintenance costs
> flies in the face of the most strightforward analysis.

It also flies (Pun intended ;)) in the face of my post. My point was
not about mainenence . It was about cutting operational corners in
general and I used the De/Anti Ice as an example. There are plenty
more.


For airlines
> operating 737-800s (Continental, American, Delta, Sun Country, ATA,
> Alaska) the average total operating cost is: 43% fuel, 23% a/c
> financing, 18% crew and 9% direct maitenance.

Laughing now.

> *The way
> they get lower costs is by flying more trips per aircraft per year and
> per crew per year.

They also do it by not training to cat ll or lll approaches or
installing ACARS and ignoring QTA limits. This list of things that
every other airline in the world has accepted as SOP and SWA (With the
FAA's blessing) gets to ignore is quite lengthy.


>They do this because the have a far more efficient
> operating model (all point to point flying, faster boarding, keeping
> cews and a/c together to minimize the impact of disruptions) and less
> onerous crew work rules leading to more flight hours per FAA "clocked"
> hour - work rules at other carriers encourage building up non-
> productive time to increase the number of union-dues-paying pilots
> required per flight hour. None of these differences affects safety,
> and some may in fact enhance safety.

Laughing harder now. Dont know who you fly for but you should have
just put your anti labor rant in the begining so we wouldnt have to
read the rest of your post. Did you know SWA has more unions on the
property than many other airlines

Frank

[J a c k]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
> J a c k wrote:
>> .....Wait till all
>>> the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
>>> safety of SWA operations.
>>
>> Other than little problems like running off runways into the
>> surrounding community, they do real well.
>
> Yeah, that happened *once*.


Wrong.

At least three times. The NTSB Database is available online for all to
see. Check it out.



Jack

[J a c k]

wrote:


> Jet Blue also hasn't killed anyone - but they haven't flown
> nearly as many trips as SWA.


If you mean to say that SWA is not responsible for any fatalities in
it's flight operations, you must be avoiding the death of a child in a
car run over by a SWA 737 at MDW, on 12/8/05:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051213X01964&key=1

Running off of runways is not something with which SWA is unfamiliar.
The rarity of fatalities is a matter of luck:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20606&key=1

A cavalier attitude toward ground operations is indicated from a reading
of the many taxi accidents in which SWA crews are involved. Numerous
ground collisions, turbulence encounters, runway misidentifications and
other accidents and incidents in the NTSB Database serve to paint a
picture of an airline whose business model does not include adequate
respect for the safety of their passengers or cabin crews. Training and
maintenance have been throughout the company's history sources of
operational problems.

No airline is perfect, of course, but I avoid using SWA. Blaming the FAA
for their own inability to keep track of the maintenance history of
their aircraft is unacceptable. The inconsistency of FAR interpretation
and application is another problem, but that doesn't let SWA off the hook.



Jack

[Jim Meade]

"Could you imagine the immediate legal action and penalties that
would
be imposed on a soaring operation or a private owner, if it was
discovered that they took paying passengers up in aircraft that were
in violation of ADs?"

Yes, I imagine if a private owner took a paying passenger up the FAA
would get incensed.

I'm only replying because I got myself suckered into reading this
thread, which seems to have virtually no relevance to soaring. We
know how the FAA administers soaring, and that we're not going to get
any breaks for any reason, so grumbling because someone else may or
may not have gotten a break doesn't have much relevance to our
interests.

Well, my only point is I wish the forum was only used for topics that
are primarily soaring. There are plenty of places to go over the pros
and cons of SWA vs. FAA.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Mar 6, 5:55 pm, "
> wrote:
> Actually, they are already leveling a fine (unjustly) against
> Southwest. From today's WSJ:
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration, imposing the largest financial
> punishment against an airline in about two decades, proposed a $10.2
> million civil penalty against Southwest Airlines Co. for flying
> passengers in 46 of its planes without complying with mandatory
> inspections to check for possible structural cracks.
>
> ...
>
> According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of
> passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without
> complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for
> fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline
> received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep
> operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the
> carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the
> inspections.
> ...
> So, Southwest realized it was in error and had not properly inspected
> for ADs. It informs the FAA who say go ahead and keep flying, so
> Southwest follows the verbal directions of the FAA. Then the FAA
> comes back and slaps them with a $10MM fine. ...

My interpretation is that they were fined 10 M$ for the violations
they reported to the FAA, not for continuing to fly with the
verbal approval that followed.

--

FF