SAFETY OVERSIGHT

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Nosir, all I know is what the FAA considers to be airworthy. I don't know the particulars of the incident in Denver, but that (I believe) was the AMT's definition of airworthy. In the case of WN, we are considering the FAA's definition of airworthy.

I do know that the poor guy is serving a federal prison term for sabotaging an aircraft. But here at the company he lives on in the folklore.

Bother way, I'm proud to work for a company who's AMT's complete certified training requirements beyond their initial certification, with 100% participation. Earning us the diamond award 5 years running.

 

[KCFlyer]

Nosir, all I know is what the FAA considers to be airworthy. I don't know the particulars of the incident in Denver, but that (I believe) was the AMT's definition of airworthy. In the case of WN, we are considering the FAA's definition of airworthy.

I do know that the poor guy is serving a federal prison term for sabotaging an aircraft. But here at the company he lives on in the folklore.

Bother way, I'm proud to work for a company who's AMT's complete certified training requirements beyond their initial certification, with 100% participation. Earning us the diamond award 5 years running.

Missing the point Ad....a mechanic threw an object into an engine because THE COMPANY did not heed his warnings and planned on operating a flight. Which brings up the question then - how many MORE flights were operated despite objections from mechanics who did NOT resort to FOD to the engine?

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Missing the point Ad....a mechanic threw an object into an engine because THE COMPANY did not heed his warnings and planned on operating a flight. Which brings up the question then - how many MORE flights were operated despite objections from mechanics who did NOT resort to FOD to the engine?

Did the FAA investigate and issue any penalty against the company for the flight in question? No, unlike the current situation going on in Dallas.

Still, your question is valid, and I don't have an answer for it. However, if your question had been how much heavy maintenance does my company outsource? It would be 0%. Southwest? 64%. Off topic, I know. But somehow relevant? Yes.

Do I like to ask questions and then subsequently answer them myself? Apparently so.

Have fun in St. Kitts. I'm jealous.

{edited to fix link}

 

[magsau]

Please... they'll have a $19 fare sale, and all will be normal again......

You know you have a point. They will probably have something along the lines of:

"Our prices are Broken; $19 BWI to PHX!"

"Low fares are "fine" with us"

"Let's talk about the years that we did not have cracks in our planes!"

"SWA and cracks. We are selective. Just ask that girl that tried to sue us!"

 

[UAL_TECH]

You will never learn and are a large part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If UA or 'anyone else' did this, my actions would be the same.
Read my posts on the NWA forum when good ole 'boy' Oberstar put the screws to them.

As for me, read these links and my responses:

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=579586



http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=579720


http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=579794


http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=580030


http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=580037


http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=580051


http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=580123
But there has


http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=580953


Taking my posts in full context, what is your issue?

If you desire for everyone to be quiet until a 'judicial' ruling occurs, that will probably not happen.
Although, I have little doubt that both SWA and the FAA will be vindicated and the whistleblowers will be fired and fined.

After all, 'no one died'!

B) UT

Still waiting for a retort from txgunnr

QUOTE (txgunnr @ Mar 7 2008, 08:06 PM)

Let's do this one more time. Nothing was covered up because as soon as WN became aware of the oversight, the FAA and Boeing were notified. All three parties agreed as to how to handle the situation. If at that time the FAA wanted to ground aircraft it would have been done. It was not, because the FAA agreed to have the aircraft inspected asap since they felt, as Boeing also felt, that there was no safety of flight issue. WN did not at any time deliberately over fly an AD on it's own. Boeing and the FAA agreed it was a non safety issue. This is being churned up again due to infighting within the FAA, a certain inspector mentioned in the dallas morning news as seeking whistleblower status, seeking retribution against his managers for personal reasons. And it doesn't help that WN turned him down for a job in the past.

I called him a liar and have not heard from him since.
Your 'reply' was a non-issue as well.
Open up the book of 'DUH', you 'boys' have zero creditability.

You have no defense. LUV screwed up.
No one died, so be happy that it will be blamed on the 'minions' instead of the real culprits (you included)

B) UT

B) UT

 

[SKY HIGH]

"SWA and cracks.

THERE YA GO-------------> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VD37D00.htm

Four of the planes that Southwest Airlines Co. grounded for inspections this week were found to have cracks in their fuselages and were undergoing repair, the company said Thursday.

 

[N924PS]

Boeing is not the only manufacturer to have crack problems.

Douglas had problems with various types but none more visible than on the A(B)26 Invader medium bomber:

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2005/AirplaneMoonPic.jpg

 

[signals]

My guess is that WN will come out of this $#!T smelling like a rose! Of course with this pandora's box now opened, it's only a matter of time before we start finding the same problem, on the same type of aircraft...but different Airlines!

Gimme a year to prove my point :huh:

 

[tech2101]

Could it be that the whistle blower mentioned in the Dallas Morning News was turned down employement at Southwest in the past?

And it doesn't help that WN turned him down for a job in the past.

You have stated this twice now. UAL Tech called you a liar.

Where is your evidence of this? Your source?

Maybe if you post it two or three more times it will be true?

Did you just join this forum to try and discredit a whistleblower??? :glare:

 

[magsau]

You have stated this twice now. UAL Tech called you a liar.

Where is your evidence of this? Your source?

Maybe if you post it two or three more times it will be true?

Did you just join this forum to try and discredit a whistleblower??? :glare:

That is the SWA defense for all things negative. For some unknown reason they think everyone on the planet has applied to be a BSB plane employee. Hardly. So even if this person was turned down the FACTS remain unchanged: SWA took DELIBERATE action to NOT comply with AD's. Attempted to cover up non-compliance and also had 41 additional aircraft grounded for their non-compliance AFTER the FAA leveled fines for other aircraft.

It shows a lack of respect for FAR's, the system and lack of oversight by an airline that people entrust their families on. This is finally bringing to light what many in the industry have known for years. Kudos to the whistleblowers and may they be recognized for the actions they have taken to stand up for what is SAFE, since SWA did not car to.

 

[tulswa]

That is the SWA defense for all things negative. For some unknown reason they think everyone on the planet has applied to be a BSB plane employee. Hardly. So even if this person was turned down the FACTS remain unchanged: SWA took DELIBERATE action to NOT comply with AD's. Attempted to cover up non-compliance and also had 41 additional aircraft grounded for their non-compliance AFTER the FAA leveled fines for other aircraft.

It shows a lack of respect for FAR's, the system and lack of oversight by an airline that people entrust their families on. This is finally bringing to light what many in the industry have known for years. Kudos to the whistleblowers and may they be recognized for the actions they have taken to stand up for what is SAFE, since SWA did not car to.

Your anger will not allow to look at facts. You use words like "deliberate" as if you have some inside knowledge to people's motivation.

I have no doubt that mistakes were mad. Neither of us knows for sure if any individual made a "deliberate mistake".

SWA self-disclosed the error (otherwise it would have likely never been discovered) and worked with Boeing and the FAA to reach an acceptable remedy.

There is dispute within the FAA as to the method used in performing these inspections. SWA chose one method last year and then chose to ground the airplanes to reinspect using the other method.

SWA operates more 737s than anyone else on the planet with a safety record that I would be glad to compare with anyone else's. I have had to ground a handful of aircraft in my 15+ years with the company. Never was I questioned or second-guess about making that call. Mistakes have been made but I will stand behind the work that our maintenance people perform. They have earned my trust and have my full support.

The silver lining here is obviously that this incident has brought you some sort of fulfillment.

 

[upsilon]

Bloomberg News reports that Southwest has cancelled plans to outsource maintenance.

The Business Travel Coalition has a lot to say about this, calling it the “Tip of the Icebergâ€￾ and citing the lapse of FAA and Congress. I think it is a very good read.

 

[magsau]

Your anger will not allow to look at facts. You use words like "deliberate" as if you have some inside knowledge to people's motivation.

I have no doubt that mistakes were mad. Neither of us knows for sure if any individual made a "deliberate mistake".

Deliberate? Sorry not my words but the words used by the FAA. Mistakes? Why would they suspend the workers if they were honest mistakes and it was self disclosed? Employees are suspended for intentional violations and not "mistakes". Keep spinning, as the news report says, this is the tip of the iceberg. SWA may actually be required to comply with FAR's? Novel and welcome to the world of airline flying, glad you could finally join us.

 

[tulswa]

Deliberate? Sorry not my words but the words used by the FAA. Mistakes? Why would they suspend the workers if they were honest mistakes and it was self disclosed? Employees are suspended for intentional violations and not "mistakes". Keep spinning, as the news report says, this is the tip of the iceberg. SWA may actually be required to comply with FAR's? Novel and welcome to the world of airline flying, glad you could finally join us.

I can always count on you for a good laugh. Trust the press for accurate reporting on anything involving aviation is your first mistake. The employees you reference are on administrative leave. If they were at fault I am sure the company and/or the FAA will take appropriate actions. I am not sure how long that you have been around they airline biz, but pilots often get pulled when they are under investigation even though they are not believe to be at fault. I will give these people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. If they are guilty of improprieties, they will suffer the consequences.

 

[magsau]

More SWA and admition of UNSAFE practices......Kelly says: "I am not satisfied we are as compliant" with maintenance requirements "or as safe as we could be,"



Southwest Adopts More Contrite Tone Over FAA Fine (NOW IN SUCK UP MODE)


CEO Hopes To Settle Proposed Penalty
When news first surfaced last week of Southwest Airlines' failure to comply with mandatory safety inspections on dozens of its jets in 2007, the Dallas-based low-cost carrier adopted a measured, though defiant, tone in its statements to the press. The airline insisted it received permission from the FAA and Boeing to keep the planes flying, even as the deadline passed for surface fatigue tests... and pointedly noted the airline has an enviable safety record.


Over the past three days, however, Southwest has changed its colors somewhat. As ANN reported, the carrier voluntarily pulled 38 of its planes from service Wednesday, after it failed to determine whether the fatigue tests had been performed; another five suspect planes were already in for maintenance.


The checks in question focused on structural and skin fatigue along the cabin windows of older 737-300 and -500 models. As it turns out, four of those grounded aircraft required repairs, according to the airline.


Southwest CEO Gary Kelly and other airline officials also stepped away from their earlier comments, criticizing the FAA for unfairly targeting his airline and exaggerating the safety concerns.


On Wednesday, Kelly met with Acting FAA Administrator Robert Sturgell to discuss the issue... and he emerged from those talks much like a chastened child, walking back from the woodshed.


"I am not satisfied we are as compliant" with maintenance requirements "or as safe as we could be," Kelly said following that meeting, reports The Rocky Mountain News. He also vowed Southwest would revamp its maintenance procedures; earlier this week, the airline placed three maintenance supervisors on paid leave.


"We will certainly be very cooperative in working with the FAA," Kelly said. "I told them we were determined to do whatever was necessary," adding the agency "gave us very stern marching orders."


Southwest hopes to reach a settlement agreement to the $10.2 million fine proposed by the FAA last week, officials added.


"We apologized to the FAA. We acknowledged we can do better," Ron Ricks, executive vice president for law, airports and public affairs at Southwest, told The New York Times.


In addition to (hopefully) avoiding further oversight ire, Southwest's very public acts of contrition are also intended to encourage Southwest passengers to have faith in the airline, and restore its vaunted reputation among customers.


"There are some that have lost trust in Southwest Airlines," Kelly said. "We will have to regain that trust."