+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: I wonder how many folks will change flight plans (/thread-2168.html)
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - Tris - 03-06-2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- Discount air carrier Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft that federal inspectors said were "unsafe" as recently as last March, according to detailed congressional documents obtained by CNN.
Congressional documents show Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft deemed "unsafe" by federal inspectors.
Documents submitted by FAA inspectors to congressional investigators allege the airline flew at least 117 of its planes in violation of mandatory safety checks. In some cases, the documents say, the planes flew for 30 months after government inspection deadlines had passed and should have been grounded until the inspections could be completed.
The planes were "not airworthy," according to congressional air safety investigators.
Calling it "one of the worst safety violations" he has ever seen, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, is expected to call a hearing as soon as possible to ask why the airline put its passengers in danger.
Southwest Airlines, which carried more passengers in the United States than any other airline last year, declined comment.
"We are not doing interviews. We are only preparing for the hearings at this time," said Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Brandy King.
The documents obtained by CNN also allege that some management officials at the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for commercial air safety, knew the planes were flying "unsafely" and did nothing about it.
"The result of inspection failures, and enforcement failure, has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, unairworthy, and at risk of lives," Oberstar told CNN.
He said both FAA managers and the airline may also have broken the law as well as threatened the safety of Southwest passengers.
The documents were prepared by two FAA safety inspectors who have requested whistle-blower status from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is headed by Oberstar. The two inspectors have been subpoenaed to testify before the committee.
The whistle-blowers say FAA managers knew about the lapse in safety at Southwest, but decided to allow the airline to conduct the safety checks on a slower schedule because taking "aircraft out of service would have disrupted Southwest Airlines' flight schedule."
Don't Miss
Airline defends actions before passenger's death
Don't feel great? Rethink flying, company says
Things airlines won't tell you about weather delays
According to statements made by one of the FAA inspectors seeking whistle-blower status, a manager at the FAA "permitted the operation of these unsafe aircraft in a matter that would provide relief" to the airline, even though customers were on board.
The safety inspections ignored or delayed by the airline were mandated after two fatal crashes and one fatal incident, all involving Boeing's 737, the only type of airplane Southwest flies.
In 1994, a U.S. Air Boeing 737 crashed in Pittsburgh killing 132. Three years earlier, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs, killing 25. Investigators blamed both crashes on problems in the planes' rudder control system, leading the FAA to demand regular checks of the 737's rudder system.
Documents provided to CNN show 70 Southwest jets were allowed to fly past the deadline for the mandatory rudder inspections.
The documents also show 47 more Southwest jets kept flying after missing deadlines for inspections for cracks in the planes' fuselage or "skin."
The long-term, mandatory checks for fuselage cracks were required after the cabin of an Aloha Airlines 737 tore apart in mid-air in 1988, killing a flight attendant. That incident, which opened much of the top of the plane during flight, was attributed to cracks in the plane's fuselage that grew wider as the plane underwent pressure changes during flight.
An FAA inspector at a Southwest Airlines maintenance facility spotted a fuselage crack on of the airline's 737s last year, according to the congressional documents. He notified the airline and then began looking through safety records, discovering dozens of planes that had missed mandatory inspection deadlines.
According to the inspector's statement in congressional documents: "Southwest Airlines at the time of discovery did not take immediate, corrective action as required to address this unsafe condition and continued to fly the affected aircraft with paying passengers."
The documents show Southwest Airlines voluntarily disclosed some of the missed inspections last spring, and Southwest Airlines told the Wall Street Journal it did not expect any civil penalties to be imposed because of the self-disclosure.
But, even after the airline's disclosure, FAA inspectors assert that planes continued to fly, in some cases for more than a week, before inspections were complete. The airline "did not take immediate, corrective action," according to the congressional documents obtained by CNN.
"That is wrong," said Oberstar. "When an aircraft is flying out of compliance with airworthiness directives, it is to be shut down and brought in for maintenance inspection. That's the law."
Southwest Airlines has never had a catastrophic crash. Federal investigators determined a 2005 incident at Midway airport in Chicago that killed one person on the ground was the result of pilot error, as was a 2000 incident at Burbank airport in California that seriously injured 2 passengers
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - Ashock - 03-07-2008
The amount of the fine is laughable and amounts to no more than a slap on the wrist. If even 1 of those planes went down and these facts came out, the punitive damages awarded to the victims families would have been 50 times that.
So basically, Southwest can pretty much continue to do what they've been doing. GJ guys.
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - eppie - 03-07-2008
Scary stuff.
By the way, do airports check the maintanance data of all planes that land there? Or is there another body that checks these things?
I mean I'm happy that this came out, but if nobody actually checks regularly if companies obey the rules this might happen (or is happening) likely on a much larger scale.
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - Nystul - 03-07-2008
Quote:Scary stuff.
By the way, do airports check the maintanance data of all planes that land there? Or is there another body that checks these things?
I mean I'm happy that this came out, but if nobody actually checks regularly if companies obey the rules this might happen (or is happening) likely on a much larger scale.
The FAA is the government body which makes the regulations and has inspectors to see them through. The most disconcerting part of the story is that FAA inspectors apparently did catch the infractions, and their managers chose not to do anything about it. I'd guess that flying Southwest will be a heck of a lot safer than driving through Columbus every day, even if they never inspect the darn rudder, but if we are going to have regulations they ought to be enforced properly.
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - Vandiablo - 03-07-2008
Isn't Pete our resident expert on airlines? IIRC. If so, I'd be interested in if he had any comment.
I find it interesting that two incidents regarding passengers were both Southwest. Remember just last week the incident with the two young women who said they were kicked off a flight because they were "too pretty" -- of course it was really because they harassed some guy who was in the lav too long. Anyway, that was Southwest. And about a year ago, a woman was kicked off a flight because her skirt was too short. Southwest again. I think SWA was probably justified in the case of the two loudmouths, but I think the other was too much. (I may be biased tho, I saw on TV the legs in question.*) Are they the same airline that kicked people because of profanity on their t-shirts??
-V
*Yes I do a magic act where she lies on a TV while I saw her legs.**
**Don't most people lie on TV?
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - --Pete - 03-07-2008
Hi,
Quote:Isn't Pete our resident expert on airlines? IIRC. If so, I'd be interested in if he had any comment.Wrong tense, should be "Wasn't" -- I'm a retired old fart, now.:)
Except for the actions of the FAA, this is much ado about nothing (Opps, Obama just called and warned me. When I say or type "Much ado about nothing", I am quoting Bill the Quill. There, dodged the 'plagerism' bullet -- but this new policy might triple the length and decimate the clarity of my posts;))
The airline failed to inspect the aircraft at the scheduled time. If the conditions that were to be inspected (tail servos and corrosion, if I got it right) were an immediate danger, the aircraft would have been grounded until inspected. So, there was no immediate danger. A routine check-up slid. Not good, but no big deal. Doesn't make the planes unsafe, just doesn't ensure that they continue to be safe. The airline should get a slap on the wrist.
The FAA managers, OTOH, should be fired and jailed. The FAA is funded by our taxes and exists to ensure our safety. The airlines will always try to cut corners to save money. It is the FAA that makes the rules and that is tasked with enforcing those rules. If they don't do their job, then the travelling public *will* be exposed to a greater risk.
Or so it seems from this easy chair.
--Pete
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - eppie - 03-07-2008
Did anybody (Pete?) already hear something about that BA plane from Beiing that landed on Heathrow. This happened February 9th 2008. A minut (or something like that) before landing both engines stopped working. They were able to just clear the fences around the airport and make a 'safe' touchdown (some passengers had some broken bones but no serious stuff).
Another story, the last year SAS had three incidents where a plane (bombardier) broke through its front landing gear just after it had landed (in Denmark and Sweden or Norway I believe). In this case SAS took out of the flightschedule all these types (they had around 40 of these if I'm correct).
I wonder how many folks will change flight plans - Vandiablo - 03-08-2008
Quote:Hi,
Wrong tense, should be "Wasn't" -- I'm a retired old fart, now.:)
Well, Commissioner Gordon and I both thank you for so quickly answering the Fartsignal. :lol:
-V