Was Southwest "cozy" with their FAA inspector?

I have no doubt that FAA personnel assigned, for the long-term, to a particular carrier, are likely to become complacent and perhaps even complicit- misguided as to where their loyalties lie.

For not one minute do I believe that Southwest (or AA, or CO, or DL) ever intended to short-circuit safe operations- it is antithetical to their entire corporate culture. But, one man's aggressive management can be another man's complicit malfeasance, and I bet we are going to find out where that line is drawn.

It has been noted by some that this is not a Southwest problem, and it is not. But if the relationships between FAA inspectors and the MX staff at the air carriers whose maintenance practices they are tasked to oversee become too close, the system cannot work well.
 
IMHO, this is a matter of 'how much regulation do we need'.

The airlines - Southwest in particular - have turned in exemplary safety records. Yet certain folks in Congress believe that heavy-handed regulation is the only way to go. We see that by the grandstanding (it's also why the FAA will be very, very reluctant to loosen medical requirements).

So, are we better off with an adversarial relationship between regulator and airline? Or are we better off working cooperatively to ensure safety?

Some (not all) FAA inspectors are like some (not all) TSA screeners - they see themselves as having some special ability to 'protect the public'. Folks, there is nothing in the Constitution or elsewhere that guarantees us a risk-free life. And with FAA processes taking so long to make even minor changes, it's excrutiating to find a better way to bring about safety yet be stymied.

If nothing else, it should be apparent to all how one episode can bring the wrath of Congress on the FAA - and why it is reluctant to change procedures and policies that were set in stone decades ago.

(opinionated rant over)
 
One other thing, Bill-

This whole thing has its genesis in the complaints of two "whistleblowers," and while the whistleblower protections may be necessary to ensure that government employees who are compelled to do wrong things by their superiors have redress, it is also a status which is all too often abused.
 
SCCutler said:
One other thing, Bill-

This whole thing has its genesis in the complaints of two "whistleblowers," and while the whistleblower protections may be necessary to ensure that government employees who are compelled to do wrong things by their superiors have redress, it is also a status which is all too often abused.
Click to expand...

In all the ranting I forgot to mention that. Disgruntled employees.... (is it possible to re-gruntle employees?)
 
My first reaction to the $10 MILLION fine to Southwest was "serves them right". After listening to the news this week about inspectors being put off by their managers, I say SW has a very good case to keep their $10 mill. In fact, I'd say the managers should be responsible for paying the fine.
It amazes me that some inspections are just a pencil whipping. I take safety seriously that if I ever it upon a pencil whipping auto inspection, I'll turn him in. I'd rather flunk than compromise.
 
If you watched the hearing on TV you would have heard a lot of truth being spoken by former FAA inspectors. You may have also heard the FAA bosses doing damage control. Many of us have been told to cut corner or to just get the dam thing out the door. This happens in all companies and the culture at the FAA was ripe for some behind the scene action. The political pressure the airlines put on elected officials will trickle down to get inspectors to back off. The problem is at the very top of the FAA and not with the inspectors on the ground kicking tires and checking records.

If a company is doing things right and following the rules they have nothing to fear from a FAA inspector. However not performing a required inspection and continuing to fly the aircraft makes money for the company. Does it happen? All the time and look at the past couple of weeks of all the major airlines admitting they overlooked an inspection. They didn’t overlook those inspection they chose not to do them knowing they would not get caught.

It only takes one or two real men to step forward and prevent an accident or even a war. Us men need to grow a set of balls and stand up for what is right and take action like we used to do. We have been so whipped down by this political correctness now one wants to take a stand for fear of being coming a scape goat.

Southwest is paying the piper to set an example for the others. I have to wonder what the other airlines have to hide, as time will tell.

Just one man’s opinion.
 
One man's opinion, Stache, and a valuable one it is.

I do know a fair bit about the philosophy at SWA regarding flight safety, and I can tell you that it is culturally engrained as a paramount value (my knowledge is close-in, well-established). They pay people well to do their jobs in the best way possible, and shirking on required MX is not something they'd embrace as a matter of policy. their utterly unmatched safety record is compelling testimony of the success of those principles.

Had they not (1) been assured by Boeing that the aircraft were in all respects safe, and (2) been approved for continued ops pending the inspections (which were done on an accelerated basis), the affected aircraft would have been grounded. This is how they operate- they reward best practices.

The chief concern here is, and shall remain, teh breakdown in the chain of command in the FAA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top