FAA seeks $10.2M fine against Southwest Airlines!

[RitterKreuz]

vodka you have it all wrong... i think you're misunderstanding me friend.

im talking about being in the jumpseat on SWA while commuting to wherever to complete whatever job.

im sitting there in the cockpit. ok. no communication indicates any clearance to exceed 250 knots. they pull the overspeed Circuit breaker and exceed the barber pole limitation by 10 to 20 knots... not once or twice but for the majority of an entire flight! I have seen this practice, from inside the flight deck, sitting in the jumpseat, with my own eyballs on at least 3 occasions and have heard coworkers relate the same story to me countless times.

if my chief pilot got wind that i pulled an overspeed warning CB and exceeded a limitation i would be fired - period.

I think southwest deserves to get nailed, just like U.S. Airways or Delta or Northwest or American would deserve to get nailed for skipping required inspections to their aircraft. Did you read the articles? a 4 inch long crack in a pressure bulkhead or a part connected to a pressure bulkhead is a big deal. period... Hawaii - 737 - convertible top - dead flight attendant - thats a big deal and southwest nor any other company - they are not immune to these occurrences.

irregardless of their taxi speed or indicated airspeed - its the business of the FAA to regulate and enforce the safety of the flying public when it comes to air travel... skipping these inspections is HUGE and i would not want my family on board a plane that had missed what the FAA calls a "Safety critical inspection".

Im not trying to look down on southwest... I have a few friends there, and it would be great to work there one day myself, but i know what i have seen.

its not just southwest... ALL the airlines deserve whatever harsh penalties they get for ANY safety or procedural violation.

10 million? shoot i say fine them 20! or even 30!  ;D

(EDIT) regarding the overun... it happened at least twice...

Southwest airlines flight 1455 in Burbank, CA -Probable cause according to the NTSB = Excessive Airspeed during the approach and landing phases of flight.

see also... Southwest airlines flight 1248 in Chicago, IL

[Slotback]

Oh ok... sorry. I thought you meant you thought it was about time for SWA to get nailed FOR the overspeed thing... something that untill now, I didn't beleive.

One question, how fast were they going? As far as I know, the 737 the 737 barber pole down low is around 340 knots... so they would of been doing 360 knots?


P.S. 1248 or whatever it was, was not due to landing fast. The other one in Cali was a classic case of a MORON pilot. Who the hell decides to land at 180 knots!?

[RitterKreuz]

P.S. 1248 or whatever it was, was not due to landing fast. The other one in Cali was a classic case of a MORON pilot. Who the hell decides to land at 180 knots!?

exactly.

Based on my observations at about 4 or 5 thousand feet he looked to be overspeeding by 20 kts... couldnt really see the numbers from the jump seat, but they were over the barber pole. im open to being wrong about this... if it wernt for coworkers pointing it out too.

i also thought it odd to just arbitrarily pull the overspeed CB... so you dont get that "clik clik clik clik", i can be sure it wasnt for an MEL compliance because i cant think of an MEL item that would have you pull that particular CB... also this was on a couple of different flights with different crews

but these airlines need to be faced with these expensive fines when they cut corners. no doubt.

example:

I did a preflight one day and there were hydraulic lines in the nose gear bay that appeared to be crimped... they also appeared to be larger lines than usual. I called a mechanic over and pointed it out to him and he said "it looks ok, i mean... we would have to tow it across the field to the hangar and put it on jacks and remove the gear doors and do a gear swing on it and " yadda yadda yadda  >:(

as i stood up and said "well, tell you what, ill let the captain look at it and he can decide." and little did either of us know the captain was right behind us shaking his head

"Im not accepting this aircraft" was all he said after one peek into the gear bay.

Example 2:

Pressurization problem is being diagnosed by maintenance and they do a 20 minute run up. about 20 minutes after completing the run up they tow the plane to the gate and i do a preflight inspection. On the right engine there is an oil blowout tube where a small amount of oil can seep out of normally. when i got to the outer cowling it was coated top to bottom in oil. the entire cowling from this blow out tube aft... a seet of metal about 3 1/2 feet tall and 5 - 6 feet wide... COVERED in oil.

also... the prop gearbox oil sight glass is indicating EMPTY.. i call over a mechanic and he cuts that "im a mechanic and your a dumb pilot" attitude with me saying "Thats an oil blowout tube its supposed to do that." to which i replied "its supposed to blow out twelve quarts of oil?" he just looked at me and i said "and i suppose this sight gauge is supposed to be showing empty too?"

at my insistence he got a ladder and checked things out. a few minutes later he came back and said "well... you guys got a problem... this plane isnt going anywhere"

NO SH*T! i thought to myself

you have to watch those guys near shift change!  ;D

[Fly2e]

Hey guys... interesting stuff!

What is a "barber pole"?

By the way, I am flying Southwest (for the 1st time) from KISP to KORD this April. I usually fly American Airlines or Jet Blue but being that KISP is literally in my backyard and Southwest is a major carrier out of KISP, it will make it convenient for my weekend trip.

Should I be nervous!  :o

[Chris_F]

[quote]Hey guys... interesting stuff!

What is a "barber pole"?

By the way, I am flying Southwest (for the 1st time) from KISP to KORD this April. I usually fly American Airlines or Jet Blue but being that KISP is literally in my backyard and Southwest is a major carrier out of KISP, it will make it convenient for my weekend trip.

Should I be nervous!

[expat]

Don't worry, all this will disappear in a few weeks. Airline standard fix.............Fire a few managers and change the company name.

Matt

[RitterKreuz]

you shouldn't be nervous. i wouldnt worry about it.

on airspeed indicators there is a little red and white stripped hand which constantly points to your max indicated airspeed. it is called "the barber pole".

[elite marksman]

Oh fun... I'll be on a Southwest flight tomorrow. KPHL-KMCO for my senior trip to Disney. I'm not worried though, as Ritter said, every company will do anything they can to save a penny or two.

As for the Aloha incident, that was under different circumstances than Southwest operates. The frequent and more rapid pressure cycles that Aloha aircraft endured in addition to the maritime environment contributed greatly to the aggravation of the stress fractures in the airframe, not that any stress fracture is something you can just overlook.

[Chris_F]

How about the FAA?  They're taking some heat for this too.  The FAA's behavior doesn't relieve Southwest of responsiblity, but I hope they get the same public scorn that Southwest so richly deserves.

[RitterKreuz]

The 'Feds" are catching heat, but not necessarily the "FAA"...

...come to find out, some of the Southwest/FAA liaisons, and Southwest FAA Inspectors knew about the missed inspections but kept quiet !!!

More examples of preferential treatment of Southwest by the FAA.

A smaller less notable 121 or 135 carrier would probably lose their operating certificate over something like this.

part of what worries me...

how many flight crews accepted the aircraft, signed for the aircraft, and flew the aircraft over how long a period of time?

if the FAA seeks to answer those questions the records DO exist for just such a purpose!

AND... if the FAA DOES seek to answer those questions, are they likely to come after the pilots? - maybe -  :-/ -maybe not -

there is nothing like receiving a 3 way phone call from your chief pilot and your FAA liaison with the question "Did you operate aircraft number 303 on flight 3123 on the 10th of January 3 months ago?"

your heart rate steadily triples its normal rate and you get that  :-? look on your face as you stumble to remember - Its NOT a happy moment.

fortunately MOST of the time that call comes after a know-nothing sort of  passenger submits a letter complaining about "stronger than normal turbulence" or "an unusual sound" and they just want to ask you if anything out of the ordinary took place... but occasionally its because of something like this situation with southwest that they call you up!

the "absolute worst case scenario" for the pilots... "certificate action" - whether your license gets suspended for XX days or revoked entirely and as a result of either action you lose your job

the "pretty bad case scenario" for the pilots... you get a letter of reprimand in your file for up to 3 years (or 4 or 5 depending on the company)

The "ugly but good scenario" for the pilots... you get called in for a "rug dance" in the chief pilot's office as a crew and as individuals and after you sweat a little they end up explaining to you that the company is at fault, and there is no way you could have known and you can go back to work now.

the "best case scenario" for the pilots... you never hear anything on the matter other than what you read in USA today on the way in from the overnight leg.  ;)

should be interesting to see which way this goes

[expat]

A long as the aircraft paperwork that the aircraft has to carry, Operators license, insurance docs etc are up to date, then as far as the pilot is concerned he is flying a legal aircraft. Not forgetting a minimum of one clean page in the techlog too. How will the pilot know if the maintenance paperwork is not up to date?, that is not his/your department. When I hand over the techlog to the pilot in the morning and it is all signed off, short of marching down to the company aircraft records office and checking hours against scheduled checks, you have no choice but to believe me. If you are flying an aircraft that should not be in the air, then I would have though that you have as much redress against the company as  the FAA. You would never put your life or that of your passengers knowingly in danger by accepting an aircraft where you know a check has been missed, so to say that you have to accept responsibility as the pilot when it is not in order is unreasonable because you would have no way of knowing in the first place if all work has been carried out. That is the trust that should exist between maintenance and cockpit. Just hope SouthWest does not f#ck it up for the rest of us.....tarred with the same brush and all that.

Matt

[RitterKreuz]

A long as the aircraft paperwork that the aircraft has to carry, Operators license, insurance docs etc are up to date, then as far as the pilot is concerned he is flying a legal aircraft. Not forgetting a minimum of one clean page in the techlog too. How will the pilot know if the maintenance paperwork is not up to date?, that is not his/your department. When I hand over the techlog to the pilot in the morning and it is all signed off, short of marching down to the company aircraft records office and checking hours against scheduled checks, you have no choice but to believe me. If you are flying an aircraft that should not be in the air, then I would have though that you have as much redress against the company as  the FAA. You would never put your life or that of your passengers knowingly in danger by accepting an aircraft where you know a check has been missed, so to say that you have to accept responsibility as the pilot when it is not in order is unreasonable because you would have no way of knowing in the first place if all work has been carried out. That is the trust that should exist between maintenance and cockpit. Just hope SouthWest does not f#ck it up for the rest of us.....tarred with the same brush and all that.

Matt

your absolutely right... where i work we have to look back at least 5 days of maintenance pages in the log book. we are looking for...

1. Are there any open write ups?
2. Do all of the numbers for the MEL items match? (if any exist which there usually is at least one MEL!)
3. Is the engine "trended"
4. is there a VOR check in the last 30 days (on is usually done every day)
5. does the MEL book indicate any flight crew required action for compliance

if those 5 basic things are satisfied it is safe for us as pilots to assume the aircraft is legal to fly.

and your right, when the mechanic hands me the log book in the morning... at some point i just have to trust him that the work has all been done. and there are a lot of mechanics at my job that i really trust... and there are a very few i dont.

but your right... short of walking down to the MTX department and asking for all that info there is no way the pilots would know otherwise that a required inspection was not done.

and i certainly dont believe any of the pilots flew the planes knowing that inspections we missing - that would be insane - even in my wildest of dreams.

but one must always remember the FAA mission statement: "We're not happy until you're not happy."

so you never know.

[Fly2e]

DALLAS (AP) - Southwest Airlines Co. canceled flights Wednesday and temporarily grounded 43 planes to examine if they were sound enough to carry passengers, the latest twist in the low-cost carrier's saga of missed safety inspections and civil penalties.

The groundings affected about 8 percent of Southwest's fleet, and came as the airline faces a $10.2 million civil penalty for continuing to fly nearly 50 planes that hadn't been inspected for cracks in their fuselages.

Southwest shares fell more than 9 percent before closing down 7.3 percent.

Since the Federal Aviation Administration announced the penalty last week, Southwest has endured a steady drip of bad publicity, which is unusual for the nation's most consistently profitable carrier and one that has never had an accident that killed passengers or crew members.

On Wednesday, word filtered out that the airline had taken 38 planes out of service, along with five others that were already in hangars undergoing routine maintenance. That's about 8 percent of Southwest's fleet.

Spokeswoman Linda Rutherford said Southwest took the action after getting clarification from manufacturer Boeing Co. on Tuesday night about the type of inspection - visual or magnetic, or a combination of both - needed for areas around the windows on some older Boeing 737-300 and 737-500 jets.

By late Wednesday afternoon, Rutherford said, 25 planes had undergone the 90-minute inspection at maintenance bases in Dallas, Houston, Chicago and Phoenix and returned to service.

Rutherford said the remainder of the 38 taken off tarmacs were expected to be back flying by Wednesday night. A 44th plane covered by the Boeing instructions had already been retired, she said.

Southwest had canceled 139 flights by late Wednesday afternoon, or about 4 percent of its scheduled flights for the day, according to Flightstats.com, which tracks airline operations.

The company said it had 520 Boeing 737 jets at the end of last year. Nearly 200 of them are older models, the Boeing 737-300, that were supposed to undergo extra inspections for cracks in the fuselage.

The FAA said Acting Administrator Robert A. Sturgell met Wednesday with Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly, who gave a briefing on the steps the airline is taking to comply with inspection orders. The FAA is conducting its own review.

Sturgell has acknowledged that the FAA should have grounded the jets last year, when Southwest itself reported that it had inadvertently missed inspections of the fuselages on its all-Boeing fleet. He has said that "at least one FAA inspector looked the other way."

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of a House committee looking into the actions of both the airline and the FAA, said this week's groundings and fresh inspections raised serious questions about the FAA's follow-up to the missed examinations last year.

Beyond Wednesday's canceled flights - airline officials said they expected to operate a normal schedule on Thursday - it was unclear what impact the unfolding events might have on Southwest's ticket sales and reputation.

Ted Marzilli, an executive at consumer-surveying firm BrandIndex, said Southwest's ratings have held up despite nearly a week's worth of bad publicity. But Wednesday's news of airplanes being grounded and flights canceled could change things for the worse, he said.

"At first this was something that happened a year ago, there were no injuries, and it was being corrected," Marzilli said. "This new story prolongs the news cycle and has the potential to do more serious impact to the Southwest brand."

But Paul Biederman, a former chief economist at TWA who now teaches at New York University, said Southwest appeared to be taking charge by announcing earlier this week that it was suspending three employees. He predicted the fallout would be short-lived.

"There wasn't an accident. Nobody got hurt or killed," he said. "It'll go away unless something else happens, like we find out cracks weren't repaired."

The $10.2 million penalty is the largest the FAA has ever imposed on a carrier. Most of the amount was related to charges that Southwest for several days last year continued to put passengers on planes that it knew had not been properly inspected.

Southwest has said it will appeal. CEO Kelly, who earlier announced an internal investigation into the missed inspections, said Wednesday that Southwest has a clean record over its 37-year history.

"We have been a safe company. I believe we are a safe company," he said. "I am committed to making sure we become safer still."