Case Study 2 Erin Olivier – AVM 371
Erin Olivier
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
AVM 371 Aviation Industry Regulations
Spring 2017
Case Study #2 – – Southwest Airlines: FAA Safety Inspectors and Cracks
I. Summary:
• In 2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT) investigated allegations that certain FAA inspectors became “too cozy” with Southwest and failed to inspect for cracks in the skin of aircraft. The failure to inspect occurred during 2006 and 2007.
• Southwest self-reported after learning that there were a couple of FAA inspectors expressing concerns that this was putting passengers at risk. These two inspectors ultimately testified at hearings as “whistle blowers.” The DOT investigation determined …show more content…
In 2009, during Southwest Flight 2294 to Baltimore, a crack caused an aluminum panel to tear open midflight. This occurred at an altitude of over 30,000 feet. This created a hole on the top of the 737 aircraft near the area of the tail. Two years later, in 2011 there was another skin related midair incident with a Southwest flight. During Southwest Airlines Flight 812 as it was leaving Phoenix a crack caused an opening in an aluminum panel while at an altitude of over 30,000 forcing an emergency landing. After this second midair incident, FAA inspectors looked at Southwest’s fleet of 737s and found that five more aircraft had cracks like what had caused the problem with Flight 812. This led to the FAA to increasing the mandatory inspection rate for crack related conditions. For example, AD issued after this incident required periodic inspections for crack related conditions at every 500 cycles for any aircraft which has flown over 30,000 cycles. Also, because some cracks are difficult to see by visual inspection because they are so small, the FAA issue an AD to require airlines with again 737s to conduct electromagnetic inspections to detect early signs of fatigue damage. This refers to the use of non-destructive eddy current testing (ECT) which is a testing method which uses electromagnetic induction to detect flaws in conductive materials. The AD requires …show more content…
III. Critical Factor(s):
• Southwest Airline’s fleet consists mostly of 737s.
• Southwest flies a high volume of short flights, so its 737s are subjected to a high volume of cycles.
• 737s were manufactured with the use of lap joints and an adhesive that did not actually bond well to the aluminum.
• The longer the 737 aircraft is in operation, the more likely cracks will appear. Many of Southwest’s 737s had been in operation for more than 15 years.
• Considering the above critical factors, Southwest had a higher risk of cracks than many other airlines, yet Southwest management formed a relationship with certain FAA inspectors who did not properly enforce mandatory inspections.
• When Southwest did make repairs on its 737s, the repairs were not in compliance.
IV. Two Alternative
Erin Olivier
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
AVM 371 Aviation Industry Regulations
Spring 2017
Case Study #2 – – Southwest Airlines: FAA Safety Inspectors and Cracks
I. Summary:
• In 2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT) investigated allegations that certain FAA inspectors became “too cozy” with Southwest and failed to inspect for cracks in the skin of aircraft. The failure to inspect occurred during 2006 and 2007.
• Southwest self-reported after learning that there were a couple of FAA inspectors expressing concerns that this was putting passengers at risk. These two inspectors ultimately testified at hearings as “whistle blowers.” The DOT investigation determined …show more content…
In 2009, during Southwest Flight 2294 to Baltimore, a crack caused an aluminum panel to tear open midflight. This occurred at an altitude of over 30,000 feet. This created a hole on the top of the 737 aircraft near the area of the tail. Two years later, in 2011 there was another skin related midair incident with a Southwest flight. During Southwest Airlines Flight 812 as it was leaving Phoenix a crack caused an opening in an aluminum panel while at an altitude of over 30,000 forcing an emergency landing. After this second midair incident, FAA inspectors looked at Southwest’s fleet of 737s and found that five more aircraft had cracks like what had caused the problem with Flight 812. This led to the FAA to increasing the mandatory inspection rate for crack related conditions. For example, AD issued after this incident required periodic inspections for crack related conditions at every 500 cycles for any aircraft which has flown over 30,000 cycles. Also, because some cracks are difficult to see by visual inspection because they are so small, the FAA issue an AD to require airlines with again 737s to conduct electromagnetic inspections to detect early signs of fatigue damage. This refers to the use of non-destructive eddy current testing (ECT) which is a testing method which uses electromagnetic induction to detect flaws in conductive materials. The AD requires …show more content…
III. Critical Factor(s):
• Southwest Airline’s fleet consists mostly of 737s.
• Southwest flies a high volume of short flights, so its 737s are subjected to a high volume of cycles.
• 737s were manufactured with the use of lap joints and an adhesive that did not actually bond well to the aluminum.
• The longer the 737 aircraft is in operation, the more likely cracks will appear. Many of Southwest’s 737s had been in operation for more than 15 years.
• Considering the above critical factors, Southwest had a higher risk of cracks than many other airlines, yet Southwest management formed a relationship with certain FAA inspectors who did not properly enforce mandatory inspections.
• When Southwest did make repairs on its 737s, the repairs were not in compliance.
IV. Two Alternative