SWA and what it means At US
- Thread starter crazystnic
- Start date
Art at ISP
Veteran
I just heard on the news this afternoon that they said the opening in the skin occurred when a lap joint failed...this sounds suspiciously similar to the previous issue does it not?
OP
crazystnic
Veteran
- Sep 28, 2010
- 781
- 727
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #18
Citing a need to curb "widespread fatigue damage," the FAA called in November for new standards on how long aircraft can fly before they need additional inspection and maintenance or must be taken out of service.
"The FAA said it no longer believes airplanes can fly forever," Goldfarb said. "They have life limits. And because of extensive fatigue, airlines need to retire them at a limit. (The FAA) thinks just (having) inspection is not enough. These cracks can propagate quickly."
In justifying the new rules, the FAA said, "Existing inspection methods do not reliably detect widespread fatigue damage because cracks are initially so small and may then link up and grow so rapidly that the affected structure fails before an inspection can be performed to detect the cracks."
***************
makes you go hmmm .. time for ours to go.. 26 years is kinda old!
"The FAA said it no longer believes airplanes can fly forever," Goldfarb said. "They have life limits. And because of extensive fatigue, airlines need to retire them at a limit. (The FAA) thinks just (having) inspection is not enough. These cracks can propagate quickly."
In justifying the new rules, the FAA said, "Existing inspection methods do not reliably detect widespread fatigue damage because cracks are initially so small and may then link up and grow so rapidly that the affected structure fails before an inspection can be performed to detect the cracks."
***************
makes you go hmmm .. time for ours to go.. 26 years is kinda old!
OP
crazystnic
Veteran
- Sep 28, 2010
- 781
- 727
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #21
*******************************
Does it surprise you that this managment team is late to the party? They "CLAIM" to have safety there number one prioroity... Even the Saftery guru has to write a letter telling the pilots all the reasons that safety is number one... But remember.. Watch their actions.... and if there lips are moving they are lying.
phllax
Veteran
The aircraft was operating flight 812 which is a 5 segment flight number BWI-MDW-STL-PHX-SMF-SAN. It departs BWI at 10:30am so it could have done 1-2 legs prior under a different flight number and arrives SAN at 7:30, so it could have done 1 more leg after under a different flight number. Figure 7 legs a day, with the longest segment being STL-PHX, and the shortest MDW-STL being flown at 28K for all of 8 minutes and I can easily see how this even happened after 15 years.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #23
Some of the later media reports say it had ~39,000 cycles. That means averaging a little over 7/day every day since it was new. Obviously it would have had some "time off" for heavier maintenance/repair of maintence problems along the way, which would up the cycles/day for the days it flew.
Somebody may remember better than I. Didn't PI/US have one of the highest time 737-200's in existence - something like 50,000+ cycles?
Jim
Somebody may remember better than I. Didn't PI/US have one of the highest time 737-200's in existence - something like 50,000+ cycles?
Jim
yvrusfa
Advanced
I don't want to come across as mean spirited on this...so I will attempt to delicately say what I mean.
The fact that this incident is happening to WN is sort of sweet justice in a way.
h34r: They have been attempting to beat the brains out of every carrier for decades.
Fine.
Part of that is attempting to make it nearly impossible for the majors to raise fares to keep up with fuel $ etc...thus many of the fare increases have failed this year because WN won't go along. This is just choking off competitors by another method.
I understand and appreciate competition in business. What I don't is the holier than thou way WN does it.
So, I hate to say it but this A/C fatigue issue and the major $$$ involved kinda serves em' right. If you fly an a/c mercilesly for 5-6-7 legs a day, every day and all the stress of pressurization that involves and through that force the rest of the industry more and more into that abyss...things can happen. Did they think it would'nt?? Me thinks they have gotten a wee-bit cocky.
That is just my two-cents...now pile away!
The fact that this incident is happening to WN is sort of sweet justice in a way.
h34r: They have been attempting to beat the brains out of every carrier for decades. Fine.
Part of that is attempting to make it nearly impossible for the majors to raise fares to keep up with fuel $ etc...thus many of the fare increases have failed this year because WN won't go along. This is just choking off competitors by another method.
I understand and appreciate competition in business. What I don't is the holier than thou way WN does it.
So, I hate to say it but this A/C fatigue issue and the major $$$ involved kinda serves em' right. If you fly an a/c mercilesly for 5-6-7 legs a day, every day and all the stress of pressurization that involves and through that force the rest of the industry more and more into that abyss...things can happen. Did they think it would'nt?? Me thinks they have gotten a wee-bit cocky.
That is just my two-cents...now pile away!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #26
I just wonder if you feel the same way when a legacy increases frequency and/or lowers fares to below what WN charges when WN enters a new market? After all, the legacies have been trying to beat the brains out of WN (and other low cost carriers) for decades not...
I trust that you know that there's been 6 successful fare increases this year. Maybe 7 - I haven't seen anything about the last attempt being rolled back. And that US torpedoed at least 1 fare increase.
Jim
I trust that you know that there's been 6 successful fare increases this year. Maybe 7 - I haven't seen anything about the last attempt being rolled back. And that US torpedoed at least 1 fare increase.
Jim
Pretty sure the infamous Aloha 737-200 had around 89000 cycles. I remember doing a walk around one day on a PI 737-200 and it had over sized rivets in the same area where the Aloha 737-200 failed. That was a month or two before the Aloha incident. I talked with a mechanic and if I remember right it was a Boeing recommended reinforcement and re-skin not an A.D. I can't remember but I thought a PI 737-200 had surpassed 89000 cycles before they put her down.
Even though our 300's are long in the tooth. Let's not forget there's even older planes out there flying domestically. How bout Delta's DC-9's from Northwest. Those things on average are 40 years old right? And I don't remember ever hearing about any of those failing for stress cracks.
Maybe bacause they were built by McDonald Douglas.
Maybe bacause they were built by McDonald Douglas.
yvrusfa
Advanced
Jim,
Nope! I don't feel the same and for one big reason.
Flying is far far too cheap for what it costs to perform the service!! :angry: One of the main reasons for that is WN and other low cost carriers, but mostly WN and that beacuse of their longevity in the biz. If you have'nt done so, read 'HARD LANDING' by Pritziker sometime. A great timeline and formulation of why we are where we are now.
This is the legacy of deregulation in a nutshell...a race to the bottom and it is unhealthy.
Cheers Jim!
