Blame Game

In early March the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced it was initiating an action to collect a $10.2 million civil penalty from Southwest Airlines for operating 46 planes without performing mandatory inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking. It seems to me that all of the focus has been on the airline. But what about the responsibility of the FAA?

Where is the follow up from the FAA to verify that the AD is complied with and the recurring instructions are also carried out?

The original airworthiness directive (AD) was issued on September 8, 2004. The AD required repetitive inspections of certain fuselage areas to detect fatigue cracking. The FAA alleges that Southwest operated those aircraft on thousands of flights between June 2006 and March 2007 without the proper follow through. The FAA also alleges that after Southwest discovered that it had failed to accomplish the required inspections, it continued to fly the aircraft in question for another year (March, 2007 – March, 2008).

"The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said Nick Sabatini, FAA associate administrator for aviation safety. "We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action."

There is a self-disclosure policy at the FAA. There are five criteria that an operator can meet and then the FAA cannot bring an enforcement action against the operator or the reporting airline. The criteria includes: coming clean with the FAA; fixing the discrepancy; and ensuring that the aircraft in question wasn’t involved in an accident. The FAA welcomes this information as a way of learning about issues before they become problems. Under the old system, airlines were less likely to admit problems knowing they would receive a penalty.

For its part Southwest did make the disclosure and should be respected for doing so. "We identified a gap in our documentation. We voluntarily reported that to the FAA," said Gary Kelly, CEO of Southwest. In addition, Southwest has stated that they helped Boeing develop the service bulletin that led to the airworthiness directive in question. Kelly went on to say that Southwest would make any changes necessary to assure the airline is in full compliance with ADs and all of its own maintenance programs. Kelly moved swiftly by taking decisive steps including, hiring a consultant to review the company’s maintenance program controls. Focusing on: AD compliance; fully engaging the FAA on the audit; and placing three employees on administrative leave (to the credit of those employees, they are cooperating with the investigation). In addition to that, Southwest took 38 aircraft out of service at once, inspected them, and returned them to service.

What system is in place to ensure the compliance of an AD? Am I naïve to think there must be a better way?

An AD is a regulation and has the force of law. There is no question about that. But where is the follow up from the FAA to verify that the AD is complied with and the recurring instructions are also carried out? There are audits and spot checks that are carried out on an occasional basis. But these hands-on inspections have been de-emphasized in recent years and have become less frequent due mainly to manpower shortages within the FAA. This begs the question, how many other inspections at other airlines have been missed or intentionally overlooked in the exact same way?

In every industry, employees are being asked to do more with less; less resources, less people, less time. The FAA is no exception. But this does not exonerate them from their responsibilities. In this day and age of computers and computer tracking systems and software, there should be a relatively quick and easy way to verify compliance of ADs. No one wants to go back to an adversarial-type relationship between the FAA and airlines. But checks and balances need to be set in place to ensure that even the short-staffed FAA can easily follow through on its own directives and verify whether or not they have been complied with. This would be mutually beneficial and yield positive results for both the airline industry and the flying public.