Southwest Airlines has agreed to remove a disciplinary action from the file of a mechanic who reported finding cracks in the fuselage of a Boeing 737 airplane, and will pay the mechanic's legal fees.
The mechanic was sent to inspect the hydraulic system and was disciplined after finding cracks, which caused that plane to be taken out of service for repair. Southwest claimed that he was working outside his job description. On appeal, a "Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge dismissed Southwest's motion for summary judgement, and granted a similar motion in favor of the mechanic."
In my experience, aircraft A&P's (airframe and power plant mechanics) are very methodical, observant, top notch mechanics... and usually under paid. If you have a job that calls for a mechanic (mechatronics, robotics, simulators, etc), consider hiring someone with an A&P background.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TLA on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:11AM
would he have been disciplined if he'd let the cracks slide and the plane fell out of the sky killing four hundred people?
Give the man a medal and a raise, not a fucking pink slip.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:40AM
I don't see him sticking around that place.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:30PM
Most commercial aircraft are flying with cracks--it's the nature of aluminum to develop cracks after some amount of stress/strain cycles. The cracks are managed in different ways, the easiest is to drill a small hole at each end of a crack to reduce the local stress. This will often stop the crack from growing as the load is passed to other parts of the structure.
In other words a small crack isn't something to get all excited about, it's something to treat and monitor. Airline management should be planning for time out of service during the useful life of an airplane...but I have no idea how Southwest handles this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:31PM
Maybe, except that they fired the guy, because the plane was pulled from service, which means the cracking was not your regular run-of-the-fuselage cracking, or his report would have went knowhere?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday March 09 2015, @12:51AM
A crack in a hydraulic system is a whole (pardon the pun) different thing than a crack in the skin, or rib. Hydraulic systems can spew combustible oil all over the place.
Whistle blower statutes have to grow some teeth, and merely reinstating and compensating the employee isn't enough. Upper management heads should roll, or huge penalties should be charged to the company.
The problem is, the practice is to wait a couple weeks and start looking for piddling excuses to fire someone, it often takes them a year to figure out how to get rid of someone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:38AM
I hate this kind of ambiguous crap from employers. "Don't do anything outside of your job area" is meaningless. What if he saw air leaking out of the tires? What if he saw the pilot doing lines of crack?
They keep saying "it is important that he do his assigned task". But no one is disputing that he did his assigned task. And to suggest that he should do no more than that is meaningless.
What they really mean is that he should shut his trap and not report expensive dangerous flying conditions. The article says that the engineer only got reimbursed part of his lawyer fees. That's criminal, he should get payment in proportion to the value of keeping a plane safe at the risk of his job, on top of lawyer fees, and the airline should be facing criminal charges.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by mr_mischief on Monday March 09 2015, @02:27PM
I can see that they wouldn't want him to spend time looking at other parts of the aircraft that are someone else's responsibility. However, it sounds like he was doing his own job and noticed an issue with a different system nearby. Letting someone know was the responsible and right thing to do.
I'm not a TSA agent, but they sure as hell ask everyone in the airport to report unattended bags if they happen to see one. I'm not a cop, but they expect me to give a statement if I witness a crime or a serious accident. I'm not in building and facilities maintenance where I work, but that doesn't mean an leaking toilet or smoke rolling out of the electrical room are things I keep to myself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:47AM
Is it too much to ask that employees simply do what is expected of them? This is the thin edge of the wedge - imagine what happens next: accountants refusing to set up shady off-shore accounts, police helping little old ladies cross the road, and parking enforcement officers warning you that you're in danger of stepping in a big pile of dog shit.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:07PM
That's gross... you mean they see the big pile of dog shit and all you expect them do is to warn you? How about not letting that dog shit piling in the parking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Sunday March 08 2015, @01:23PM
We have to draw the line somewhere. That would require enforcement officers to be carrying a stack of 2015-CEIN forms (Canine Excrement Infringement Notice).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 08 2015, @08:52PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Funny) by tibman on Sunday March 08 2015, @07:35PM
They tried that but the dogs never pay the fines.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @08:51PM
LOL
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @02:07AM
WOOF!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nuke on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:22AM
I am amazed that South West Airlines are not having their operating licence taken away after this. I have worked in engineering companies all my career and have never met an attitude like that.
At one point I was a railway engineer. It was in the conditions of employment that every employee (even office staff) had to keep a lookout for and report hot axle boxes on trains. I worked in an office overlooking the railway, and sometimes one or other of the guys I worked with, if they felt like a break, would wander over to the window and stare out at the passing trains for a while "in case they saw a smoking axle box".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:29PM
You seem to be under the impression that corporations are held to standards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @04:58PM
"I have worked in engineering companies all my career and have never met an attitude like that."
That would make you the coffee clerk then?
SW isn't unique in this regard, middle management climbers are everywhere. And yes I would still fly Southwest. I've flown a dozen different airlines over the years, and seen a few SNAFU's. My experience with Southwest has been good overall by comparison, and while I don't usually worry to much about safety when making my choice, (Thanks FAA!) I do know that uniformity contributes to good maintenance practices. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Sunday March 08 2015, @07:46PM
SNAFUS are normal situations in the airline industry (duh)
In the last few years BA took off with the engine open. The engine caught fire, and they decided the best solution was to not land at the nearest airport (a rural one - stansted), but to fly over Central London belching flames and debris as it was more convienient for them to return to get it fixed at heathrow.
One BA pilot drove into a building, writing off a 747 in Joburg.
Air France decided flying into Lebanon was a bit tricky as a protest had blocked the road to the crew hotel. They diverted to damascus, about 12 months into the "civil" war
Virgin had both pilots asleep at the controls a year ago, and that's a common thread throughout CAA/ntsb boards
Staff are pushed more and more by airlines trying to reduce costs and increase dividends, however flying remains the safest way to travel.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dry on Monday March 09 2015, @03:56AM
Sooner or later the small government people will get power and shrink the regulators as obviously the airlines can inspect themselves without bias and of course they'll not screw up as it would mean losing business.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:44AM
Since this is how they treat someone for reporting problems with their aircraft, I will be permanently boycotting Southwest Airlines. Nobody be punished for doing the right thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:02PM
I've been boycotting them since I was born (it comes natural, me not residing on US) and they are still in business. Why do you think your boycott will make a difference?
Also, why do you feel the need to call your caution (refusal to take additional risks flying planes managed by stupid people) a boycott?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Insightful) by romlok on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:51PM
Do you vote? Why bother? You're just one person. The chances of a single person's vote or boycott) making a difference is practically nil. So why bother voting at all?
(Note to anyone not paying attention; the parent to whom I'm replying is not from the US, so their vote may actually matter).
My personal take on the nomenclature is that a "boycott" indicates that you are explicitly refusing to endorse a company for moral or ethical reasons, rather than merely practical.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday March 08 2015, @01:20PM
There is another interesting aspect to the comparison with politics, all we know for sure is SWA is transparent enough, and hires mechanics who are ethical enough to report (or used to hire, anyway).
Much as we use voting as an opiate of the masses, given two almost identical candidates representing only Wall Street, we have a very small number of airlines all with basically identical policies (otherwise there would be dramatic differences in profitability and crash rates) and all that matters is triviality like who isn't buying "enough" advertising this month such that they'll get dragged thru the mud as extortion technique.
Or rephrased you can assume based on identical outcome that the internal operations are identical, regardless of how one sided the propaganda might be TODAY.
Deciding between identical things based on the random fall of todays propaganda is the modern opiate of the masses.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by morpheus on Sunday March 08 2015, @02:04PM
Any flight instructor who worked for a flight school of any size knows that he/she had to tell his students to `go easy on reporting minor problems with the aircraft'. It is actually not a totally stupid rule: students do not necessarily know what is dangerous and what is not (out of fairness, some flight instructors I met do not either) and every report has to be acted upon which means the airplane has to be taken out of service making the flight school lose a lot of money. It also means I do not work because a student was concerned with a `bent piece of aluminum on the tail'. Yeah, it is the trim plate and it is supposed to be bent...
On the other hand, disregarding the opinion of an A&P is sheer negligence. Makes me wonder about SW ...
(Score: 5, Informative) by tibman on Sunday March 08 2015, @07:39PM
The article says that he verified the cracks with other mechanics who confirmed that both cracks were bad enough to pull the plane from service.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @03:43PM
it was out of spec. There is no other industry that documents fits and tolerances like aviation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @01:26AM
There is no other industry that documents fits and tolerances like aviation.
Do you have a citation for this? I tend to believe you, but automotive manufacturing is also very deep when it comes to fits and tolerances for parts in high volume production.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday March 09 2015, @11:35AM
So what other airlines should one avoid?
(they are probably all bad, but some are likely worse than others)