Hi all. Most of us here realize that Southwest is still a perfectly safe carrier to fly on even after the recent accident and incident however, this article still does a good job of putting things into perspective.

http://theplanegeek.com/southwest-is-no ... s-airline/

What do you guys and girls think?

While I agree with the thesis, the data are wrong. AA had 251 non-terrorism passenger fatalities in 2001 alone, and the article says somewhere less than 125 injuries since 2000.

Cubsrule wrote:

While I agree with the thesis, the data are wrong. AA had 251 non-terrorism passenger fatalities in 2001 alone, and the article says somewhere less than 125 injuries since 2000.

There are separate fatality and injury charts...

kabq737 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

While I agree with the thesis, the data are wrong. AA had 251 non-terrorism passenger fatalities in 2001 alone, and the article says somewhere less than 125 injuries since 2000.

There are separate fatality and injury charts...

. . . Which is silly, as is the methodology. If people had been hurt or killed in US1549, why would or should that “count” against US/AA? Should the TFN deaths “count” against PA?

Cubsrule wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

While I agree with the thesis, the data are wrong. AA had 251 non-terrorism passenger fatalities in 2001 alone, and the article says somewhere less than 125 injuries since 2000.

There are separate fatality and injury charts...

. . . Which is silly, as is the methodology. If people had been hurt or killed in US1549, why would or should that “count” against US/AA? Should the TFM deaths “count” against PA?

I think it’s all going off of objective raw statistics. I’m not saying it’s the absolutely proper way to go but I can see the logic in it. Would’ve been interesting if they had included pre merger accidents in the numbers too...

Air travel on any US domestic airline is extremely safe. Any data around incidents involved basically what amounts to statiscal outliers that fall outside the realm of random chance.

Like they always say, the drive to and from the airport is more dangerous. I am more scared with all of the distracted or aggressive driving than flying.

To put things in perspective, this is essentially a 1 person BLOG. Calling it an "Article" is a bit misleading.

Of the hundred of millions of passenger WN has carried over 47 years to only have one die by their hand still means an impeccable safety record compared to that of DL UA and AA.

I am on no way bashing the US3, they have amazing safety records as well and again i mean them no malice as i would fly on them as much as i would WN. Its just there for those who like to nitpick from statistics.

TWA772LR wrote:

Of the hundred of millions of passenger WN has carried over 47 years to only have one die by their hand still means an impeccable safety record compared to that of DL UA and AA.

I am on no way bashing the US3, they have amazing safety records as well and again i mean them no malice as i would fly on them as much as i would WN. Its just there for those who like to nitpick from statistics.

Well said. Thank you.

kabq737 wrote:

Hi all. Most of us here realize that Southwest is still a perfectly safe carrier to fly on even after the recent accident and incident however, this article still does a good job of putting things into perspective.

http://theplanegeek.com/southwest-is-no ... s-airline/

What do you guys and girls think?

Wouldn’t classify this as an article. Blog post is more like it.

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

flyguy84 wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

Hi all. Most of us here realize that Southwest is still a perfectly safe carrier to fly on even after the recent accident and incident however, this article still does a good job of putting things into perspective.

http://theplanegeek.com/southwest-is-no ... s-airline/

What do you guys and girls think?

Wouldn’t classify this as an article. Blog post is more like it.

Yeah you’re right I just liked the statistics here. Mods please modify the title. I wasn’t thinking so well when I wrote it.

The world is waiting to hear from WN:
1) How many engines have been inspected for defective fan blades?
2) What percentage of their fleet remains to be inspected?
3) How many fan blades have been found to be defective?

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

But WN has had a higher number of these events. So there is some culpability in the WN daisy chain.

An airline is safe until it isn’t. There are a lot of turns along the path of an airline.

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

I could only imagine that as a legal defense for everyone some crash a car due to poor mx and claiming. That's almost like saying it's not Ford's fault for all those crashes because they didn't make the Firestone tires on all those old Explorers.

mcdu wrote:

But WN has had a higher number of these events. So there is some culpability in the WN daisy chain.

An airline is safe until it isn’t. There are a lot of turns along the path of an airline.

Two events in hundreds of thousands of flights? How much "culpability" do you find in that?

Are you new at this, or have you been trolling here for the last 13 years?

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

Southwest did drag it's feet about checking all the engines for the blade fault.

RickNRoll wrote:

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

Southwest did drag it's feet about checking all the engines for the blade fault.

And the FAA aloud them to drag its feed. The engine maker recommended a faster inspection regim.

salttee wrote:

mcdu wrote:

But WN has had a higher number of these events. So there is some culpability in the WN daisy chain.

An airline is safe until it isn’t. There are a lot of turns along the path of an airline.

Two events in hundreds of thousands of flights? How much "culpability" do you find in that?

Are you new at this, or have you been trolling here for the last 13 years?

How many other 737’s have had this issue? Of all the 737 operations it’s only WN that has had this happen. Per the FAR’s the owner operator is required to maintain the aircraft. Not the engine manufacturer or the airframe manufacturer.

mcdu wrote:

salttee wrote:

mcdu wrote:

But WN has had a higher number of these events. So there is some culpability in the WN daisy chain.

An airline is safe until it isn’t. There are a lot of turns along the path of an airline.

Two events in hundreds of thousands of flights? How much "culpability" do you find in that?

Are you new at this, or have you been trolling here for the last 13 years?

How many other 737’s have had this issue? Of all the 737 operations it’s only WN that has had this happen. Per the FAR’s the owner operator is required to maintain the aircraft. Not the engine manufacturer or the airframe manufacturer.

WN also operates the world’s largest fleet of 737s and some of the oldest 73Gs. We’d expect more 737-specific incidents on WN.

It is always interesting when someone takes the time to come up with fair and accurate statistics. My only criticism is that documentation of source of data, and more explanations of the use of that data was lacking. The graphs confirm when we have read online here over the years.

Cubsrule wrote:

mcdu wrote:

salttee wrote:

Two events in hundreds of thousands of flights? How much "culpability" do you find in that?

Are you new at this, or have you been trolling here for the last 13 years?

How many other 737’s have had this issue? Of all the 737 operations it’s only WN that has had this happen. Per the FAR’s the owner operator is required to maintain the aircraft. Not the engine manufacturer or the airframe manufacturer.

WN also operates the world’s largest fleet of 737s and some of the oldest 73Gs. We’d expect more 737-specific incidents on WN.

But all of the other combined operators haven’t experienced what WN has with their failures. UA and AF experienced similar failures on different engines. If those two airlines had multiple failures like WN I suspect many of those saying this isn’t a big deal for WN would be clamoring to draw safety parallels at those carriers.

RickNRoll wrote:

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

Southwest did drag it's feet about checking all the engines for the blade fault.

Actually, no.

mcdu wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

mcdu wrote:

How many other 737’s have had this issue? Of all the 737 operations it’s only WN that has had this happen. Per the FAR’s the owner operator is required to maintain the aircraft. Not the engine manufacturer or the airframe manufacturer.

WN also operates the world’s largest fleet of 737s and some of the oldest 73Gs. We’d expect more 737-specific incidents on WN.

But all of the other combined operators haven’t experienced what WN has with their failures. UA and AF experienced similar failures on different engines. If those two airlines had multiple failures like WN I suspect many of those saying this isn’t a big deal for WN would be clamoring to draw safety parallels at those carriers.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any suggestion from the NTSB that anything specific to WN caused or contributed to either accident. Am I misremembering?

Cubsrule wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

WN also operates the world’s largest fleet of 737s and some of the oldest 73Gs. We’d expect more 737-specific incidents on WN.

But all of the other combined operators haven’t experienced what WN has with their failures. UA and AF experienced similar failures on different engines. If those two airlines had multiple failures like WN I suspect many of those saying this isn’t a big deal for WN would be clamoring to draw safety parallels at those carriers.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any suggestion from the NTSB that anything specific to WN caused or contributed to either accident. Am I misremembering?

You are not.

The statistical "Swiss cheese holes" lined up in this situation. Bad deal, but not negligence on SWA's part.

By any rational evaluation, Southwest can reasonably be characterized as the safest airline there is, and if you know anything about their operational philosophy, you understand why. "Safe" and "reliable" are inextricably intertwined, and SWA maximizes best practices to accomplish both.

hiflyeras wrote:

The world is waiting to hear from WN:
1) How many engines have been inspected for defective fan blades?
2) What percentage of their fleet remains to be inspected?
3) How many fan blades have been found to be defective?

Maybe change your screen name to "World".

Cubsrule wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

WN also operates the world’s largest fleet of 737s and some of the oldest 73Gs. We’d expect more 737-specific incidents on WN.

But all of the other combined operators haven’t experienced what WN has with their failures. UA and AF experienced similar failures on different engines. If those two airlines had multiple failures like WN I suspect many of those saying this isn’t a big deal for WN would be clamoring to draw safety parallels at those carriers.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any suggestion from the NTSB that anything specific to WN caused or contributed to either accident. Am I misremembering?

The investigation is not complete. Let’s see what the final report says.

sccutler wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

Southwest did drag it's feet about checking all the engines for the blade fault.

Actually, no.

Actually yes. They asked the FAA for a deferment on inspecting their fleet.

Southwest Airlines was one of several carriers that called for a revamping of the proposal, telling the FAA that it wanted more than the year the engine-makers suggested to complete the inspections. The airlines filed formal comments with the agency, with Southwest saying it would need 18 months to inspect the 732 engines that would be subject to an order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/so ... ks-n867876

hiflyeras wrote:

sccutler wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

Southwest did drag it's feet about checking all the engines for the blade fault.

Actually, no.

Actually yes. They asked the FAA for a deferment on inspecting their fleet.

Southwest Airlines was one of several carriers that called for a revamping of the proposal, telling the FAA that it wanted more than the year the engine-makers suggested to complete the inspections. The airlines filed formal comments with the agency, with Southwest saying it would need 18 months to inspect the 732 engines that would be subject to an order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/so ... ks-n867876

and if the FAA had felt it was unsafe or inappropriate to grant the deferment, it would have denied the request. It did not do so.

Without even bothering to read the article, I would not dream of considering Southwest as dangerous. On the basis of how well the crew, in particular the pilot, handled the situation, I would think just the opposite. I hold them in very high esteem.

Anyone remember the issues the 737-300 had (USAir 427 and UA 585), WN probably operated more of those aircraft than the other airlines combined and yet they did cancel and delay flights to get the inspections done. This doesn't sound like an unsafe airline to me. Also, look at how many daily flights they operate. How many incidents have they had? A minuscule number compared to their daily flights.

The fact that an article even has to state that WN is not a dangerous airline goes to show how little the average public still understands about aviation.

Flame away......

If I could offer the following thoughts.

I think we are confusing the conversation, the proposed legislation versus actual legislation, and public comment period sent between the airlines (including Southwest) and the FAA.

Per the FederalRegister.gov (https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads ... rocess.pdf):
How do public comments affect the final rule?

The notice‐and‐comment process enables anyone to submit a comment on any part of the
proposed rule. This process is not like a ballot initiative or an up‐or‐down vote in a legislature.
An agency is not permitted to base its final rule on the number of comments in support of the
rule over those in opposition to it. At the end of the process, the agency must base its
reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting of the comments, scientific
data, expert opinions, and facts accumulated during the pre‐rule and proposed rule stages.

To move forward with a final rule, the agency must conclude that its proposed solution will help
accomplish the goals or solve the problems identified. It must also consider whether alternate
solutions would be more effective or cost less.

If the rulemaking record contains persuasive new data or policy arguments, or poses difficult
questions or criticisms, the agency may decide to terminate the rulemaking. Or, the agency
may decide to continue the rulemaking but change aspects of the rule to reflect these new
issues. If the changes are major, the agency may publish a supplemental proposed rule. If the
changes are minor, or a logical outgrowth of the issues and solutions discussed in the proposed
rules, the agency may proceed with a final rule.

This is the timeline of communications that I understand presently

August 25, 2017 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument)

FAA issues an AD Noticed of Proposed Rulemaking and opens up a public comment period. Comments must be submitted by October 10, 2017.
Proposed AD Language: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-0 ... -17828.pdf

October 10, 2017 (https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrows ... -2017-0313)
Several stakeholders (including airlines) have submitted their comments and feedback for consideration. The notable stakeholders in my opinion (listed in the order received and posted on the Regulations.gov website):

Lufthansa
Norwegian Air Shuttle
CFM International
RyanAir
Qantas
Air Line Pilots Association, International
Delta Air Lines
American Airlines
United Airlines
Southwest Airlines
Alaska Airlines

One can read and/or download the above stakeholders comments at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrows ... -2017-0313


I think the confusion here lies in the process.

The FAA has issued proposed AD language and seeking feedback from stakeholders.The AD is not final - it is a draft. Through the public comment period, each stakeholder offers an opinion that may or may not influence the FAA's legislation. By no means is this language final and enforceable! It is a draft! The FAA can choose to incorporate stakeholders feedback or they can choose not to as part of the final AD.

Southwest or any other stakeholder's comments can not be construed as an official protest regarding the AD to the FAA, nor is it deferment on inspecting their fleet or that each airline stakeholder 'drag its feet'. Each stakeholder offered comments, opinions and drafts based on a process established by the FAA.

I encourage everyone to read Southwest and every other airlines' comments to the FAA regarding NPRM FAA-2017-0313.

https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrows ... -2017-0313

mcdu wrote:

But all of the other combined operators haven’t experienced what WN has with their failures. UA and AF experienced similar failures on different engines. If those two airlines had multiple failures like WN I suspect many of those saying this isn’t a big deal for WN would be clamoring to draw safety parallels at those carriers.

Soooo basically what you do with WN every single time anything remotely negative occurs at WN right?

hiflyeras wrote:

sccutler wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

Southwest did drag it's feet about checking all the engines for the blade fault.

Actually, no.

Actually yes. They asked the FAA for a deferment on inspecting their fleet.

Southwest Airlines was one of several carriers that called for a revamping of the proposal, telling the FAA that it wanted more than the year the engine-makers suggested to complete the inspections. The airlines filed formal comments with the agency, with Southwest saying it would need 18 months to inspect the 732 engines that would be subject to an order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/so ... ks-n867876

They didn't need 18 months, they wanted 18 months.

Would I fly on Southwest? Yes, I would. The trip to the airport would still be more dangerous than the actual flight, as they say. WN did make the wrong decision on this issue, though.

RickNRoll wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

sccutler wrote:

Actually, no.

Actually yes. They asked the FAA for a deferment on inspecting their fleet.

Southwest Airlines was one of several carriers that called for a revamping of the proposal, telling the FAA that it wanted more than the year the engine-makers suggested to complete the inspections. The airlines filed formal comments with the agency, with Southwest saying it would need 18 months to inspect the 732 engines that would be subject to an order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/so ... ks-n867876

They didn't need 18 months, they wanted 18 months.

Would I fly on Southwest? Yes, I would. The trip to the airport would still be more dangerous than the actual flight, as they say. WN did make the wrong decision on this issue, though.

How did Southwest make the wrong decision?

Bradin wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Actually yes. They asked the FAA for a deferment on inspecting their fleet.

Southwest Airlines was one of several carriers that called for a revamping of the proposal, telling the FAA that it wanted more than the year the engine-makers suggested to complete the inspections. The airlines filed formal comments with the agency, with Southwest saying it would need 18 months to inspect the 732 engines that would be subject to an order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/so ... ks-n867876

They didn't need 18 months, they wanted 18 months.

Would I fly on Southwest? Yes, I would. The trip to the airport would still be more dangerous than the actual flight, as they say. WN did make the wrong decision on this issue, though.

How did Southwest make the wrong decision?

Southwest fought the fast time line, proposed by CFM, for the fan blade inspection and incurred an preventable accident. They now run the fan blade inspection on a very short timeline with added cost. If that is not a wrong decision what would you call a wrong decision?

mjoelnir wrote:

Bradin wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

They didn't need 18 months, they wanted 18 months.

Would I fly on Southwest? Yes, I would. The trip to the airport would still be more dangerous than the actual flight, as they say. WN did make the wrong decision on this issue, though.

How did Southwest make the wrong decision?

Southwest fought the fast time line, proposed by CFM, for the fan blade inspection and incurred an preventable accident. They now run the fan blade inspection on a very short timeline with added cost. If that is not a wrong decision what would you call a wrong decision?

Please explain to me how they fought the fast time line because as I understand above, they did not fight this in courts. Nor was the AD even finalized. It was feedback sent in during a public comment period. How can one fight something when it isn't even final?

Please also don't paint this as just Southwest was 'fighting this' or 'was the only entity requesting 18 months'. The FAA is the entity who originally proposed an 18 months timelines. CFM requested that it be moved up from 18 months to 12 months.

Reference: https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... an-engines

Proposed AD Language:

(2) For engines, on the effective date of this AD, with 15,000 CIS or less since the last engine shop visit and with fan blades, P/N 340-001-022-0, 340-001-027-0, 340-001-029-0, 340-001-037-01, or 340-001-039-0, installed, perform a USI of the fan blades within 18 months after the effective date of this AD or at the next fan blade lubrication after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Comments and Suggestions by CFM International: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0313-0008

In Compliance paragraph f (2), CFM recommends changing the compliance period from "...within 18 months..." to "...within 12 months...". This change will make the AD compliance date consistent with SB 72-1024 (Dec 31, 2018) completion date.

Comments and Suggestions by Southwest: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0313-0017

Para f (2), SWA does NOT support the CFM comment on reducing compliance time to 12 months. SWA estimates
there are 732 engines in the SWA population for para f (2). Compliance time of 18 months will be needed to
schedule and complete the required ultrasonic inspections. CFM’s risk assessment for SB 72-1019 and SB 72-1024
compliance times did not take credit for the number of fan blades already inspected in the fleet and the findings
rate. SWA requests this risk assessment be updated to make a more data informed AD mandated compliance time.

Southwest's comments are simply that - comments. As stated earlier, Southwest made comments - not file suit against the FAA saying this is unreasonable because the text is a DRAFT. Not FINAL.

Lost in the debate about the AD and blade inspections is what happened to the rest of the engine. Blade failures like this are supposed to be contained. I'm more interested in how this escalated into such a bad situation from just a blade failure.

Sure, with the benefit of hindsight, WN made the "wrong" decision by asking for more time. But that is purely with the benefit of hindsight. What we don't know is whether there is something else that no one knew about that resulted in such a large uncontained failure.. so until the investigation is over, finger pointing isn't really valuable.

Just my 2 cents.

Q wrote:

Southwest DOES NOT make engine to cause engine failure. Southwest DOES NOT make manufacture for window to cause crack window! Please STOP negativity labeling Southwest. Window and Engine are completely different company who made those manufacture. You guys are all wrong!

Q

No but knowing there is an issue with the fan blades and actively campaigning for a delay in checking them was a major PR screw up. If they had started the checks earlier, they my have never had the accident.


BTW Southwest has been one of my favorite airlines for years. Gets me there quick & always been on time (shear luck.) Also in 42 years of flying I have never lost a bag on any airline.

There was no campaigning by Southwest for delaying in checking them. Southwest is requesting the FAA keep the 18 month timeline proposed by the FAA.