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