Southwest GROUNDS 41 JETS !

[BoeingBoy]

What I find amusing is the AD that started all this. The FAA was so unconcerned that the aircraft would be unsafe without this inspection that gave the airlines 4,500 more cycles to accomplish the inspection. It didn't matter if the airplane had 40,000 previous cycles or 90,000 without the inspection - you could still operate the airplane up to 4,500 more cycles before doing the inspection for the first time.

BTW, the 4,500 cycles allowed by the AD to initially accomplish the inspection is the same limit as the interval between inspections. Effectively, the AD assumed that the inspections were done on the affected airplanes the day the AD came out, so operators had a full inspection cycle to do the initial inspection - regardless of how many cycles an affected airplane had accumulated or if the inspection had ever been done ICW with Boeing's prior service bulletin.

Should WN have done the inspections within the cycle limits specified by the AD - absolutely.

Did WN seek to escape grounding the affected aircraft once the oversight was caught - absolutely.

Did Boeing and the local FAA inspector approve not grounding the airplanes if the inspections were done expeditiously (within 10 days or probably less than 80-100 cycles) - apparently so.

Was there a risk that one of the affected airplanes would come apart because the inspection wasn't performed on time - apparently even the FAA doesn't think so since they allowed so many additional cycles to accumulate without the inspection when they published the AD originally.

Jim

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

You are the one implying that the flying public was put in major danger. My whole point was that we don't know if there were any cracks. All we know so far is that the required inspections were not done on schedule. We also know that 8 of the a/c have been inspected and put back in service. Uh, I'm guessing no cracks on those.

Knowing the integrity and forthrightness of SWA top executives, they will do whatever it takes to make this right.

Indeed, the top executives are not the ones to be worried about, no one is disputing that. The middle-management whose scrupulousness is being questioned, who may have allowed this oversight to occur are the ones you should be paying attention to.

 

[CynicalResAgent]

Just thinking about the logistics/aircraft swapping side of this, I'd imagine grounding 38-43 planes seems like it would affect WN a lot less than other carriers due to the one aircraft type. Where as if another carrier had to ground a large portion of one fleet type they would have to fill the gap with other planes that require other ground service and mission specific requirments. When Horizon had to ground the Q400's it seemed to have a pretty large impact. Wn can absorb the loss from anywhere in the system, long haul or short haul.

 

[jimntx]

According to the 5pm news here in Dallas, the inspections are complete. Minor cracks were found in 4 of the a/c. That's right...4. According to a Boeing spokesman (evidently, they assisted with the inspections) "NO PASSENGER WAS EVER IN DANGER." Sorry, Magsau, once again you have been foiled in your attempts to paint SWA as the evil empire. Maybe next time.

P.S. The caps are not shouting. I just wanted to make sure that no one missed the statement.

 

[magsau]

According to the 5pm news here in Dallas, the inspections are complete. Minor cracks were found in 4 of the a/c. That's right...4. According to a Boeing spokesman (evidently, they assisted with the inspections) "NO PASSENGER WAS EVER IN DANGER." Sorry, Magsau, once again you have been foiled in your attempts to paint SWA as the evil empire. Maybe next time.

P.S. The caps are not shouting. I just wanted to make sure that no one missed the statement.

Do you think Boeing would ever say that a passenger was in danger on one of it's airplanes? Of course not the liability would be huge to them. If the airplane cracked in two pieces while taxiing Boeing and SWA would always say it was not dangerous. If you feel cracks are Ok then I suggest you go find an airplane with cracks and go flying with those at altitude for a lengthy period of time.

By the way if you have time you might want to look at those photos of the Aloha 737 that prompted this AD and then tell me you would like to sit up front on the airplanes with cracks.

Much like the non retracting speed brake on Boeings. If they had that feature installed the AA 757 would not have hit the hill in Cali. Boeing will not design that feature into new aircraft as it would admit failure in design in the past, even though the Airbus has this feature and it is the safest design.

I don't have to paint SWA as the evil empire. They seem to be doing a darn "fine" job themselves (pardon the pun)

 

[jimntx]

Well, it's all a vast conspiracy. I say Col. Mustard, in the Dining Room, with the candlestick.

 

[insp89]

According to the 5pm news here in Dallas, the inspections are complete. Minor cracks were found in 4 of the a/c. That's right...4. According to a Boeing spokesman (evidently, they assisted with the inspections) "NO PASSENGER WAS EVER IN DANGER." Sorry, Magsau, once again you have been foiled in your attempts to paint SWA as the evil empire. Maybe next time.

P.S. The caps are not shouting. I just wanted to make sure that no one missed the statement.

UH, Funny thing about Fuselage Cracks, So called "minor" cracks can grow into MAJOR cracks if they are not properly addressed...
I would say that it might be a good ideal to actually do these inspections ON TIME, That applies to ALL airlines that fly these aircraft.

 

[tech2101]

What I find amusing is the AD that started all this. The FAA was so unconcerned that the aircraft would be unsafe without this inspection that gave the airlines 4,500 more cycles to accomplish the inspection. It didn't matter if the airplane had 40,000 previous cycles or 90,000 without the inspection - you could still operate the airplane up to 4,500 more cycles before doing the inspection for the first time.

BTW, the 4,500 cycles allowed by the AD to initially accomplish the inspection is the same limit as the interval between inspections. Effectively, the AD assumed that the inspections were done on the affected airplanes the day the AD came out, so operators had a full inspection cycle to do the initial inspection - regardless of how many cycles an affected airplane had accumulated or if the inspection had ever been done ICW with Boeing's prior service bulletin.

Should WN have done the inspections within the cycle limits specified by the AD - absolutely.

Did WN seek to escape grounding the affected aircraft once the oversight was caught - absolutely.

Did Boeing and the local FAA inspector approve not grounding the airplanes if the inspections were done expeditiously (within 10 days or probably less than 80-100 cycles) - apparently so.

Was there a risk that one of the affected airplanes would come apart because the inspection wasn't performed on time - apparently even the FAA doesn't think so since they allowed so many additional cycles to accumulate without the inspection when they published the AD originally.

Jim

An excellent point Jim.

As AMT's we are taught that even the risk of losing one life is too much (duh).

As you know, in the business world, companies calculate risk. The FAA is no different. Remember, the FAA has a dual role: 1) To ensure aviation safety 2) To promote aviation. They use actuarial tables to figure out the cost (to an airline) of an AD versus the likelihood of loss of life.

Automobile companies do the same thing when making decisions on recalls and assembly line changes. How much will the settlement payment of a few accidents cost in comparison to changing a critical part or process in the design/assembly of the auto? Risk/reward.

Look at the BP refinery in Texas City. A classic example.

Some interesting reading here

Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[txgunnr]

The 41 ac grounded last week were not related to the AD situation. Those planes were fixed last year. These were not AD driven at all, also there is no rudder problem. Oberstar had bad information on that one. Let's just wait and see what comes from the FAA investigation currently ongoing and the hearings.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Great!

The ‘No Big Deal’ defense. :blink:

Who did not see this one coming?

Next time I am on deck with a FAA Inspector, I will throw the ‘No Big Deal’ defense at them and watch him/her cringe as they put a borescope up my A$$.

The FAA does not create an AD (Airworthiness Directive) without due cause (Key word is Airworthiness).

We can beat this horse to death, but at the end of the day I am elated that ‘No One Died’.

B) UT

 

[jimntx]

It would be interesting to see how many of us would come out with clean hands from a thorough FAA review of our maintenance.

Gee, I must be psychic! Though these weren't instigated by the FAA, methinks the recent SWA news and fine motivated UAL, LCC, and my airline to "check, just in case."

AA scrubs 200 flights for equipment inspections

United grounds 747s

US 57s grounded

Correction: I just heard on the TV news here in Dallas that the grounding of the AA planes for inspection IS an FAA directive.

 

[DLtoWN]

Gee, I must be psychic! Though these weren't instigated by the FAA, methinks the recent SWA news and fine motivated UAL and my airline to "check, just in case."

AA scrubs 200 flights for equipment inspections

United grounds 747s

Correction: I just heard on the TV news here in Dallas that the the grounding of the AA planes for inspection IS an FAA directive.

Yes, and the AA and UA inspections, as well as the WN issues, are minor BS that has been blown out of proportion by the media.

 

[phlgreaser]

Dont forget the de Havilland Comet. Started with small cracks.