Comments on: Be Careful Before Deciding Southwest Was Unsafe

By: Yearblook

Yearblook — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:34:21 +0000

This is an interesting post. You should submit it at yearblook.com/submit.php. Yearblook is a competition to find each day’s best blog posts. At the end of the year, the 365 best posts (1 from each day) will be published in a book (a real, printed book, you will find it on Amazon).

By: seth

seth — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:17:59 +0000

Well it seems that the planes are still not all in the clear; a whole bunch were just grounded. I agree that leaping to the conclusion that they are inherently unsafe because they are late on an inspection is a grand move, but at the same time, there is a reason the inspections are mandated and it looks like some collusion within the FAA/WN relationship to boot.

Not inherently unsafe, but still a very bad idea.

By: CF

CF — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:06:35 +0000

Chuck N – I was more focused on the safety implications of this particular incident, and from what I can tell, there weren’t very many.

But I think you’re pointing out the real story here. It’s the FAA that has serious problems that keeps it too close to the airlines and not as effective as a regulatory body as it should be. That’s the scariest part of this whole thing – not this particular incident.

By: Chuck N.

Chuck N. — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:40:26 +0000

CF, I’m surprised that you think this is minor. Have you read BusinessWeek’s article of an FAA whistle-blower Mark Lund? Sounds like the same/similar situation with Southwest. Basically, the FAA Supervisor/Manager are in bed with the airlines. Southwest is not allowing the following to be posted on their blog:
1. FAA Inspector (whistleblower-WB) finds out about the continued lack of inspections. Files report to his FAA Supervisors.
2. Southwest conveniently hands an “anonymous” complaint about WB to FAA Supervisor. WB re-assigned. FAA gives ok for SWA to fly.
3. FAA closes investigation in April 2007.
4. WB seeks WB status with Congress. Congress investigates. FAA re-opens SWA case, issues fine a couple before Congress was to conclude their investigation.

If you really read all the Dallas papers, you would have known this.

By: john

john — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:17:56 +0000

Trinketization

I’ve always been concerned with air safety – irrational given the stats – but its got so bad I can’t sit near a window over the wing for fear of seeing those painted signs that say ‘ do not walk beyond this line’. Its not the idea of people walking on the wing I fear (I know they don’t do it while airborne) but its the footprints on the wrong side of the line that bother me. From such skericks of info paranoia grows.

See here: Trinketization

By: Wes

Wes — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:18:36 +0000

After reading the Faa letter I am amazed that SWA was negligant enough to let this happen. This is an inspection that has to be done to all 737’s.
So it looks like they were doing to most jets but due to record keeping these slipped through. This would be norm for a bankrupt airline but last time i checked SWA had plenty of money. I know that CF is trying to pass this off as no big deal but the AD was meant for jets that do
short flights and alot of cycles IE(Aloha and SWA).

By: seth

seth — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:47:14 +0000

The planes didn’t suddenly become dangerous one day because an inspection deadline had passed. But the fact that they continued to fly them after acknowledging that they were well out of compliance is bad. That being said, the $10MM fine is probably much less than it would’ve cost them to cancel the 1400 flights. At $7200/flight, it is a no-brainer to anyone running the company that you keep flying and pay the fine, and use your PR machine to deal with the fallout on that front. Sad but true.

The issues with the fuselage cracks seem more important to me than the rudder inspections, but that’s because I have no idea what I’m talking about, not because I’m smart :)

By: CF

CF — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:59:14 +0000

Here's an interesting release that just came out from a former NTSB investigator. You never know if a guy like this has an axe to grind or if someone is paying him, but it seems to shed a little more light on the situation. Oh, and sorry I can't answer any of your latest questions dakota67. Wish I knew!

By: dakota67

dakota67 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:41:49 +0000

Do excuse me chaps but being from down-under I do not know what the content and format of the aircraft’s Tech Log is in the USA. I mean, it may not have been possible for the pilots to open it up and see that there were outstanding ADs. As a last line of defence. The old Jim Reason’s slice of cheese.Anyway, rest of Industry may learn something.
And I wonder what the carrier’s underwriters think of all this?

By: Rob Mark

Rob Mark — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:12:46 +0000

This entire Southwest fiasco seems to be lacking some context.

Why would one of the top-rated airlines completely ignore the feds inspection rules when they have not in the past? Obviously the CEO though they were OK with FAA as much as a year ago.

Something changed.

The FAA inspectors union released a statement that has quite a few of those same ugly labor relations issues bubbling up that I see as a cause of conflict with the controllers.

Maybe FAA decided to make someone a scapegoat to avoid some other internal problem.

Just a thought.

Rob Mark