The FAA has filed an action for a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines on account of operating aircraft without conducting a particular routine inspection on them. Here’s the story: For some unstated reason, Southwest failed to conduct “mandatory inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking” on forty-six Boeing 737 Classic-series aircraft from June 2006 to March 2007. Southwest notified the FAA of its lapse on March 15, 2007, and according to the airline, “The FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007.” Apparently not. According to the FAA, “after Southwest Airlines discovered that it had failed to accomplish the required repetitive inspections, between March 15, 2007 and March 23, 2007, it continued to operate those same 46 airplanes on an additional 1,451 flights. The amount of the civil penalty reflects the serious nature of those deliberate violations.” Southwest is not denying that it operated these flights, and according to a statement from Boeing, “Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of its technical opinion that the continued operation of SWA’s Classic 737s, for up to 10 days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue.” Boeing did not believe the safety of Southwest’s fleet was ever compromised. So, to recap: Southwest thought that the FAA had approved operating the aircraft between discovering the lack of testing and the conclusion of testing, and the FAA says it never approved such a plan.
At the heart of this issue, as best I can see it, is the phrase “deliberate violations.” What did Southwest think constituted FAA approval? We need to wait and see how Southwest officially responds to the FAA’s action to learn more. I’ve queried Southwest, and if I hear more details, I’ll post them. This is a very serious issue. Some observers (including the usual suspects in Congress) are jumping to conclusions, but I think we need to wait and see what else Southwest has to say.
FAA accuses Southwest of ‘deliberate violations,’ proposes $10.2 million fine [ATW Daily News]
We Take Safety Seriously [Nuts about Southwest]
Photo credit: Flickr user Cubbie_n_Vegas. Used through a Creative Commons license
Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog 
Sounds like there is a PMI (Principle Maintenance Inspector) with his underware in a wad! The FAA is not in a position to mandate to an airline how they will maintain their aircraft. It is up to the airline and the manufacturer who have the sole responsibility to determine airworthiness of an aircraft. Once the FAA starts to mandate then they must start to accept the the responsibilty / liability should the aircraft be involved in an incident and or accident because of their directions in how to maintain the aircraft.
As for congress they need to speak softly and stay on the sidelines until there is a definitive resolve to this situation.
Everyone should be aware that the Aviation community is governed by a set of regulations (FAR’s held is the uniform code) not laws that are left open to interpetation. This being said in order for the FAA to collect a fine from anyone they must take that indivdual and or entity to a court of law and prove to the court that the regulations were not followed.
No, Mr. Hayes, the FAA does issue airworthiness certificates (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/
aircraft_certification/airworthiness_certification/). If the FAA were to knowingly or negligently certify an aircraft that was not airworthy, I doubt it would be indemnified.
Yes, Evan the FAA does issue a certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft upon completion of its manufacture. After that it is up to the owner and the manufacturer to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition. Unlike other countries that have their government inspectors inspect the maintenance records and the airframes of their country’s registered aircraft every two years our FAA only signs off on the aircraft on its date of manufacture or when a special flight permit is needed and then a licensed technican will have made an entry in the logbook stating ” the aircraft is safe for the intended flight”, before the FAA will issue the permit. I believe that once all that facts surrounding the issue have been brought out that we will find the aircraft were not in an unairworthy condition and that no fine will be paid.