Well Southwest has gotten away with this for too long. They've been fined $7.2 Million a few years back for not properly maintaining their planes. Ever since the Aloha Airlines incident, airlines have been keeping close tabs on their 737s. Even Northwest spent millions to keep their DC-9s flying safely. I'd like to see Southwest get a huge fine for this, its unacceptable. Good thing is, this is a problem just with the 737, its not effecting the 757's. Southwest's whole fleet could get grounded. This may be bad for them but its good for the other airlines, which Southwest has undermined. So many of their planes have problems, its just unacceptable.

BLAH BLAH BLAH... All hater talk. You must be a a really excited user of some other us airline or a employee of one. WN has not had a single crash that has resulted in a passenger fatality in it's history and considering how many flights that has been since the early 1970's thats very impressive. Mike Avallone

I must say it certaintly is interesting in the media with all of this.. There is a lot of fuss over this hole, and the whole nuclear disaster in Japan seems to be going by the wayside... Regardless cracks in airframes on aircraft are perfectly normal. All aircraft have rated limits as well. Just because you develop a crack in an airframe does not mean you repair it then. If it is within an acceptable predetermined limit then you can stop drill it to prevent it from spreading, and monitor it over subsequent flights (on an H-60 it is every 28 days, but then again we do not have pressurized airframes).. Now there are areas cracks would not be allowed such as engine mounts, on certain beams/stringers/longerons that are integral to the aircrafts structural integrity.... Now maybe this is a case where Boeing may have to ammend these limits due to the aircraft aging, and other factors they did not anticipate when setting these limits. It does not make the aircraft less safe to fly than any other bird though. I just think that for the legacy 737's there will be a re-evaluation and maybe some changes in their maintenance publications and that will be the end of it. I am more interested into why certain passengers appeared to not get oxygen through their masks (although maybe that is media hype?). I am just glad everyone is ok, and we are able to relect back and learn from the incident instead of combing through wreckage.

BLAH BLAH BLAH... All hater talk. You must be a a really excited user of some other us airline or a employee of one. WN has not had a single crash that has resulted in a passenger fatality in it's history and considering how many flights that has been since the early 1970's thats very impressive. Mike Avallone

+1Southwest has been flying 40 years now, since 1971. No fatalities, and only a couple with a few minorly injured passengers. As a comparison, and nothing against US Airways, but they have been in operation as US Airways since 1979, yet they have had 5 incidents involving fatalities, with anywhere from 2 to 134. They have also had 3 other incidents with minor or serious injuries. I'm sure US Airways isn't doing anything wrong, but Southwest clearly has no defects in aircraft maintenance.

I don't think it's actually illegal - it breaks the airline's rules to do it, but I don't think it's actually a federal crime. Even if it was, the crime would be the act of operating the camera, not the existence or viewing of the video.

FAR 121.306Operating the camera when prohibited, encouraging the operation of the camera (publicizing such a recording), and profiting from the use of operating the camera (running the video on a for-profit website), in the strictest sense of the law, are all crimes.

FAR 121.306Operating the camera when prohibited, encouraging the operation of the camera (publicizing such a recording), and profiting from the use of operating the camera (running the video on a for-profit website), in the strictest sense of the law, are all crimes.

As a pilot here in Canada, I'd like to be more informed on how the United States airlines view the use of portable cameras and/or their equipment. A camera does not as per FAR 121.306 "cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." Note FAR 121.306 (B )(5) actually prohibits the use of any device that interferes with the previously stated systems. A camera interferes with neither.In Canada, as opposed to the States, the PIC can allow the use of cell phones, cameras and any other other device that he deems will not interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. Talking about GA flying here. I find it odd that you can't use a cell phone, even in an emergency on board a GA aircraft in the States.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/04/texas.southwest.planes/index.html?hpt=T2

No, you didn't get it wrong. And that's what's wrong. Seems the maintenance procedures, as established by the FAA/Boeing, do NOT go looking for trouble, but rather only monitor/test things that have been a problem. It's system of reaction rather than proaction. What astonishes me is that, if I heard this right, the airline industry only tests the seams at documented problem areas -hence the reason why they never found a problem at the area of plane with the hole in it.

I would say this is partially true. At some point the entire aircraft gets inspected (what I term a Phase, but others refer to as a heavy maintenance check).. It would be true that during daily turnarounds that only known problem areas, or discrepancies requiring periodic follow ups (ones waiting for a heavy check, or a longer availablility to be repaired) would be looked at. Would be almost impossible to check the entire plane for cracks everytime it goes to the gate. The man power alone would be staggering, not to mention time involved. Aviation maintenance is all based on established limits, and probabilities of things occuring. I have seen T700 engines go through entire life cycles with no issues on older aircraft. Where we have had some of the brand new T700's in our R's fail with between 100-200 hours on them.. Will just have to wait and see what the NTSB says. I will believe though that SWA and their mechanics were not being negligent though. I just think maybe the limits they are using to gauge these cracks might have to be reduced, or inspection criteria refined. I would almost be willing to be there were numerous factors along with the crack, such as weakened rivets around the crack, or corrosion/fretting between the metals that weakened it further to that point.

I find it odd that you can't use a cell phone, even in an emergency on board a GA aircraft in the States.

No one was ever prosecuted or cited for using a cell phone on board any aircraft (GA or other) in the US in case of emergency (and there were numerous such cases), regardless what the law states.

As a pilot here in Canada, I'd like to be more informed on how the United States airlines view the use of portable cameras and/or their equipment. A camera does not as per FAR 121.306 "cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." Note FAR 121.306 (B )(5) actually prohibits the use of any device that interferes with the previously stated systems. A camera interferes with neither.In Canada, as opposed to the States, the PIC can allow the use of cell phones, cameras and any other other device that he deems will not interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. Talking about GA flying here. I find it odd that you can't use a cell phone, even in an emergency on board a GA aircraft in the States.

When truly portable cell phones first came out back in the early 90's, the AEA (Aircraft Electronics Association) had a good article in their monthly newsletter for avionics shops regarding the installation or use of cell phones in GA aircraft. The prohibition against operating a cell phone in flight in ANY aircaft (at least in the United States) is an FCC (Federal Communications Commission) restriction, rather than an FAA rule. (FAR 121.306 of course applying to a large variety of electronic devices in commercial airlines.) Cell phones by design are supposed to connect to the network through only one ground-based base station (cell tower) at a time - normally the one which is physically closest to the phone. If the user is in a moving vehicle, the phone will be handed off from one tower to the next along the vehicle's route, again based on the received signal strength from whichever tower is closest.However, when an ordinary cell phone is used in flight, several thousand feet above the ground, it may be within line-of-site distance of multiple cell towers at once, which plays havoc with the signal-strength-based switching logic of the cellular providers' networks, which is why the FCC put the restriction in place.In a true in-flight emergency though, (complete radio failure in hard IFR for instance) I'm sure most GA pilots would at least try to use a cell phone to reach ATC no matter what FAA or FCC regs might say. I know I would.The seat-back cell phones installed in airlines for the use of passengers (at hefty per-minute rates), work through a dedicated network specifically intended for use by aircraft in flight.Jim Barrett

FAR 121.306Operating the camera when prohibited, encouraging the operation of the camera (publicizing such a recording), and profiting from the use of operating the camera (running the video on a for-profit website), in the strictest sense of the law, are all crimes.

On youtube you'll also find videos of people driving over the speed limit, driving recklessly, using illegal drugs, etc. What are you getting at?Scott Johnston

If this doesnt convince you that landings like this, hour after hour day after day cant impact the stress fatigue or yeild strength stress ratio of a aluminum airplane, then you needa go take a course in metallurgy.

Actually you're the one who needs a basic course in metallurgy or materials science for that matter. If you had either, you'd clearly know that the yield strength and fatigue factors are inherent properties of the metal itself, and thus, cannot change. Just because an aircraft has 10 landings or 100,000 landings has no effect on the "yield strength stress ratio." The yield strength and ultimate tensile strength is purely a function of the metal itself. The funny thing here is you blabbering on about the aluminum airframe of the airplane, when this is clearly a corrosion issue associated with the rivet joints, not the aluminum chosen for the frame. Most likely it's a 2024 aluminum alloy. What probably occured, due to thermal expansion, was a plastic deformation in the rivet joints, which led to grain boundary growth in the critical areas of the rivet where creep has set in over time.source of info: I'm a materials engineer

Does tnorton776 honestly believe that pilots would voluntarily bang aircraft down in such a manner that could lead to a stress accident? None of the pilots I know actually want to put themselves or their passengers/cargo in a position of danger. To think that they would is ridiculous in the extreme.

This is what happens if you do a too heavy a landing!!!This incident in 1972 was due to the spoilers being deployed prior to touch down!!The a/c (the original VC10 prototype)was written off.vololiberista

This is what happens if you do a too heavy a landing!!!This incident in 1972 was due to the spoilers being deployed prior to touch down!!The a/c (the original VC10 prototype)was written off.vololiberista

WOW, that has been hard!

This is the field i Work in, and I know what I'm talking about.

What? You work in a machine shop as a machine operative, turning out components and you call yourself an engineer. The impression I get from your posts is that you don't know what being an engineer means.Real engineers, i.e. those who are qualified to call themselves that, don't make unsubstantiated claims as you do. They get evidence in the form of data first and carry out a proper analysis and testing to show what is happening. Now, most people outside of the aviation industry, like yourself, are unable to do this. So anything they say on the subject is pure speculation and, as such, worthless.Iain Smith