A number of U.S. air carriers are dealing with numerous flight cancellations caused by unscheduled jetliner inspections spawned by maintenance record checks ordered by the Federal Aviation Administration in the wake of Southwest Airlines’ failure to inspect some of its older Boeing 737s.
And the maintenance dragnet comes in advance of a congressional hearing at which disgruntled FAA inspectors will testify that senior FAA officials have failed in regulating airline compliance with airworthiness directives.
The FAA issued a directive ordering U.S. airlines to inspect their older 737s because the wing fuel tanks could be punctured by loose or broken parts. A similar episode occurred on a newer model 737 last year, and the China Airlines plane exploded in flames after it landed in Okinawa, Japan. All 165 passengers and crewmembers safely scrambled down emergency chutes or jumped from cockpit windows.
The FAA said it is working with Boeing to determine if a “similar unsafe condition” exists on other Boeing airplane types, since they incorporate a similar design. “As a result, we may consider additional rule-making as those evaluations are completed,” the agency said.
The latest directive affects some 3,500 older 737s in operation worldwide, although only U.S. operators are required to make the inspections. But air safety authorities in other countries usually follow the FAA’s lead.
In the U.S., about 650 planes must be inspected, according to the FAA. The concern involves the assembly that moves the wing slats on the 737-300, 737-400 and 737-500. Unlike flaps, the slats are on the front of the wings.
“Boeing has notified us that it has received numerous reports of fuel leaking from the slat track housing,” the FAA directive said. In all cases, according to the directive, there were no reports of a fire because of the fuel leak. But the federal agency warned that a fire could result from such a fuel leak.
Meanwhile, United Airlines retested the altitude indicators on seven of its Boeing 747 jumbo jets after determining that test equipment at a maintenance facility in South Korea needed to be checked for calibration.
“We voluntarily disclosed to the FAA that we were retesting the seven aircraft and have found no issues,” United said in a statement.
Union mechanics said in a statement that United’s actions highlight the risk in relying on offshore facilities for airline repairs and maintenance.
The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) said the faulty test equipment was used to calibrate altitude and air data aircraft computers to a precise level that permits flying in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM) airspace. The aircraft were all repaired overseas at a facility operated by Korean Airlines in Busan, Korea.
“The problem discovered with the Busan aircraft confirms AMFA’s view on outsourcing and passenger safety,” said Joseph Prisco, president of AMFA Local 9 in San Francisco, the location of UAL’s large maintenance facility.
“United Airlines will probably brush this off as an example of how quickly they respond to problems,” adds Prisco, “but the problem is one that all airlines contribute to. When the decisions of the last two decades have been made based on airline economics at the expense of maintenance, this is where the system starts to break down.”
AMFA argues that all United aircraft should be maintained by UAL mechanics. AMFA opposes all outsourcing of this work, both domestic and international.
“In the end, this may be dismissed as a close call. FAA and UAL management will quickly point out that this problem is being fixed. UAL, however, outsourced this work in the first place and the FAA, woefully understaffed and underfunded, are not up to the task of monitoring and inspecting domestic vendors, much less facilities that span the globe,” Prisco continued.
And American Eagle temporarily grounded 25 Bombardier CRJ-700 regional jets, according to the Dallas Morning News, after FAA regulators questioned whether its planes underwent federally required inspections. The airline later showed that a manufacturer’s modifications addressed one of the potential problems. Eagle had correctly performed a separate check of the rudders, airline officials said.
American Airlines and Delta Air Lines canceled hundreds of flights last week as they pulled MD-80 and MD-88 aircraft from service to comply with maintenance checks directives, part of an FAA audit. Maintenance lapses by Southwest Airlines in 2006-07 that were revealed recently triggered the audit.
After a five-foot by four-foot panel ripped off the wing of a US Airways Boeing 757 flying over Maryland, the airline discovered that seven of its Boeing 757 aircraft had improper maintenance work done on certain wing sections to comply with earlier safety mandates.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the affected planes, all of which US Airways acquired second-hand, had the correct paperwork for prior installation of a bracket to strengthen a portion of the composite panel covering the trailing edge of the wing. But after further checking, these people said, the brackets were found to have cracks or the fix was otherwise defective. It’s not clear where the original modification was installed.
US Airways said it contacted federal authorities immediately after the Saturday incident and began inspections of similar aircraft in its fleet that same day. Out of 43 Boeing 757s, 18 had to comply with the specific FAA safety directive issued years earlier. Of those 18 jets, seven that were acquired second-hand had to be repaired.
Amid rising concerns over lapses in airline maintenance, the nation’s top aviation safety official says he wants to make it easier for federal inspectors to raise concerns even if their bosses object, reports the Wall Street Journal.
Nicholas Sabatini, the Federal Aviation Administration’s associate administrator for aviation safety, says the proposed changes are designed to prevent a repeat of the situation that occurred at Southwest Airlines.
Sabatini said the changes he plans to institute will address tension between the FAA’s unionized inspectors and the managers who oversee them. The new mechanism he is developing, tentatively dubbed the “Safety Information Reporting System,” is aimed at preventing a repeat of the bureaucratic stifling of inspector’s concerns that occurred at Southwest.
The new system, which may be announced formally in the week ahead, would make it harder for supervisors to overrule or dismiss potential safety issues raised by inspectors. Any disputes would be documented, labeled with a control number and elevated to a regional review board. At that regional body, issues would be periodically reviewed to ensure they are resolved properly.
The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS), the union that represents FAA rank-and-file inspectors, said: “It is appalling that the FAA chose to fine Southwest only after several months of investigations by Congress and the threat of a pending hearing instead of immediately addressing the implications brought forward by inspectors over a year ago.
“The series of events not only highlights the dysfunctional relationship between FAA management and its workforce, but it also perpetuates the fact that the FAA is only willing to take action against the airlines when backed into a corner rather than taking inspectors at their word.
“It is unfortunate that the inspector assigned to Southwest Airlines had to resort to invoking whistleblower protections in order to have his claims validated. Even more unfortunate is that there are other inspectors out there who undergo the same types of retaliatory actions by the FAA and air carriers for simply doing their jobs.
“The relationship between the FAA and the industry has developed into troubling partnerships rather than the FAA maintaining a strong oversight role. Many of these partnerships have grown into more ‘cozy’ relationships that result in the FAA becoming the protector of the airline rather than the flying public, thus weakening the authority of FAA safety inspectors to perform their job and reducing their role as critical safety enforcers.
“The bottom line is that the FAA appears to be more concerned with keeping airlines solvent rather than safe,” PASS added.