CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- It's probably worth asking: Is air travel safer now? Over the past month, four major U.S. carriers canceled hundreds of flights to conduct sudden inspections, costing millions of dollars and inconveniencing thousands of passengers. Plentiful media coverage followed, and last week the House Transportation Committee heard Federal Aviation Administration whistleblowers detail their struggles to draw attention to improper maintenance procedures at Southwest ( LUV). As committee chairman Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.) said repeatedly, the committee's very public interest in the FAA's failed oversight of Southwest prompted inspections at AMR's ( AMR) American, Delta ( DAL) and UAL's ( UAUA) United. Airline safety is a complex and emotional topic, but it is difficult to conclude that the disruptions at the latter three carriers were justified by imminent safety concerns. Instead, the events were partially theater, required by a perceived need at a time of intense scrutiny to clearly demonstrate a commitment to safety. In the case of United, for instance, the carrier grounded its fleet of 52 Boeing 777s because it believed it had failed to direct its maintenance workers to test a component of the cargo fire-suppression system. A further review indicated that the test was not initially included in the Boeing maintenance manual, although it was included in a later revision. Still, United acted immediately to perform the tests. "We all share in the industry's responsibility for safety and there is no obligation that we take more seriously," said Pete McDonald, chief operating officer, in a prepared statement. Worth noting is that commercial aviation in the U.S. is probably the safest transportation system in the history of the world. Occasional skirmishes around the margins are no doubt helpful in keeping it that way. But sudden flight disruptions, while they inconvenience travelers, do not necessarily enhance safety. As for the hearing, its value was in revealing that, sadly, the FAA remains an agency where dissenting views on safety are not welcome. Perhaps in the aftermath of recent events, they will be.
"They knew that they violated the rules, and they had to do something about it, because every time you don't follow the rules, you raise the risk incrementally," he continued. "But it didn't mean impending disaster." As for the FAA, Goglia says, a regional manager erred in ignoring dissent. "Now everybody in the FAA knows they screwed up by not listening to the whistleblowers," he says. "There is no doubt in my mind that
associate FAA administrator Nick Sabatini will deal with this issue." On Monday, the FAA reassigned Thomas Stuckey, the regional manager who had overseen the Dallas Southwest office. His new duties were not specified. While airline safety has steadily improved, the FAA's history shows a black mark, because in 1996 the agency bottled up a report suggesting that ValuJet should be shut down because of mounting operational problems. That report was never read at the agency's upper levels. Three months later, a ValuJet airplane crashed in the Florida Everglades, killing 110 people. "This smells," said Goglia at the time, evaluating the report as an NTSB member. Last week's hearing, says consultant Mike Boyd, "shows that nothing has changed since ValuJet. Those two whistleblowers are throwing their careers away. They will be assigned to jobs sweeping out closets. "The real issue here is that the guys above those whistleblowers didn't want to know about the problems," Boyd said. "They were afraid they would have been blamed for them."