Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Investigating Southwest & Unapproved Parts  
User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry if this has been posted already, I couldn't find it anywhere..

Apparently the FAA is looking into some WN birds flying with "knockoff" parts. The parts were installed by a maintenance subcontractor, who is using an unapproved vendor for the exhaust gate assembly hinge fittings.

Southwest had to ground 46 aircraft (~9% of the fleet!) but the FAA is now saying that the planes can fly for now...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32566527/ns/travel-news/


When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7368 times:

The FAA is clearly looking very closely at WN because of its maintenance problems in the past.

User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 1):
The FAA is clearly looking very closely at WN because of its maintenance problems in the past.

Do you have a source that the FAA is looking at WN closer than the other airlines they monitor? Also, pending you proving the 1st assertion, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that they are doing so due to their "maintenance problems in the past" - and what, exactly, would those problems your bring up be?

100 million pax/yr and 30 + years of flying with no pax killed is enough to make me feel safe on WN. Sorry if you or others disagree...... (in fact, I struggle to name a single 121 carrier I would refuse to fly on safety concerns).



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7243 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 2):
Do you have a source that the FAA is looking at WN closer than the other airlines they monitor? Also, pending you proving the 1st assertion, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that they are doing so due to their "maintenance problems in the past" - and what, exactly, would those problems your bring up be?

This from the hole in the fuselage article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759883646340515.html

"Southwest agreed in March to pay the second-largest civil penalty ever against a carrier after the FAA initially proposed a $10.2 million fine for missed inspections. Regulators said Southwest knowingly flew 46 of its older 737s on nearly 60,000 flights between June 2006 and March 2007 without performing necessary structural inspections."

This from the latest grounding due to using UNAPPROVED parts:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125124829126559043.html

"The Southwest spokeswoman said the carrier temporarily grounded the planes "out of an abundance of caution'' and that the FAA told the airline Saturday afternoon that the existing parts were safe. She described it as a "paperwork" issue and played down any differences of opinion with the FAA. She added it was still unclear if Southwest would need to replace the parts in question."

According to the release last night, it was not a "paperwork" issue. They were unapproved parts and this is really a telling point. The FAA is basically singling out SWA as the only carrier using UNAPPROVED parts. http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idINN2628052120090826?rpc=44

"The investigation continues, but the FAA said it does not believe the problem extends to other airlines. Southwest could be fined, the FAA said."

I am sure SWA is a great airline with great people. However, in the face of the evidence it appears perhaps that the casual atmosphere that exist may be too casual in instances. Personally I thought we would never hear of a an issue with SWA mtc again after the huge fine last year. Have to say I am surprised to see this still happening at SWA.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7001 times:



Quoting Mcdu (Reply 3):
Personally I thought we would never hear of a an issue with SWA mtc again after the huge fine last year. Have to say I am surprised to see this still happening at SWA.

Perhaps the difference is the "hearing," not the the issue happening. I think the media is taking a closer look at WN than at others because of the previous issues; around the time WN had the fuselage crack issues and AA and DL had the M80 issues, AX had fifty percent of their fleet grounded. It got a paragraph in the Post-Dispatch and, AFAIK, no other media coverage.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6928 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
. I think the media is taking a closer look at WN

Perhaps since SWA is still having ongoing issues and they had to re-ground 40+ airplanes again it warrants closer attention. Once is a blip, twice is a pattern perhaps?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6919 times:



Quoting Mcdu (Reply 5):
Once is a blip, twice is a pattern perhaps?

I'm not saying that this should be happening, believe me. But what if this is happening to others and we simply aren't hearing about it? Then, it wouldn't be correct to say that this is a problem specific to WN.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6702 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
I'm not saying that this should be happening, believe me. But what if this is happening to others and we simply aren't hearing about it? Then, it wouldn't be correct to say that this is a problem specific to WN.

If AA, DL,UA or any other carrier had to ground 10 percent of its fleet I am pretty sure we would have heard about it.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6656 times:



Quoting Mcdu (Reply 7):
If AA, DL,UA or any other carrier had to ground 10 percent of its fleet I am pretty sure we would have heard about it.

I've already documented for you an instance where a 121 carrier had FIFTY percent (which is much more than ten percent) grounded and there was almost no media coverage.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6306 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
around the time WN had the fuselage crack issues and AA and DL had the M80 issues

Technically, DL didn't actually have any problems but checked the fleet after the AA problems to make sure.  Smile


I hope for WN that this gets resolved but somehow I think that it won't be without pain.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6161 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Thread starter):
Apparently the FAA is looking into some WN birds flying with "knockoff" parts

Southwest is not flying with as you say "Knock-off" parts. They are flying with parts from a non approved vender. A Non-approved vendor is just someone that is not on the airlines approved vendor list, that's all. It does not mean or imply that that vendor is or gas doen anything wrong.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineCOFanNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5910 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
A Non-approved vendor is just someone that is not on the airlines approved vendor list, that's all. It does not mean or imply that that vendor is or gas doen anything wrong.

The actual situation is that the part is unapproved by the FAA to be on an aircraft registered in the United States. It does mean that the vendor AND the airline have done something wrong.

The vendor put a part that hasn't been tested by the aviation safety administrators in the United States and thus should not be used under any circumstance. The airline has the ultimate obligation to ensure that none of its outsourced repair stations use any unapproved parts.

It has nothing to do with a Southwest "approved vendor list".


User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5839 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):

Southwest is not flying with as you say "Knock-off" parts. They are flying with parts from a non approved vender. A Non-approved vendor is just someone that is not on the airlines approved vendor list, that's all. It does not mean or imply that that vendor is or gas doen anything wrong.

COFan took the words out of my mouth. Let's use coke as an example. Let's say they usually have CCE bottling supply them with Coke, but, for some reason, Sam's Club cut a deal with a WN provisioner on cheap cans of Coke. Buying those cans from Sam's Club would be an example of using an unapproved vendor. (ps, I "unapprove" of your usage of an "e" in vendor  wink  ) What happened in this instance was that Sam's Club (i.e. the outsourced maintenance guys) swapped the Coke for RC Cola and thought that no one would notice.

Quoting COFanNYC (Reply 11):

The vendor put a part that hasn't been tested by the aviation safety administrators in the United States and thus should not be used under any circumstance. The airline has the ultimate obligation to ensure that none of its outsourced repair stations use any unapproved parts.

Exactly. I'm a huge supporter of WN in general, to the point of infamy in some cases... but I have a hard time excusing them this time. I find their lack of pubic comment shocking as well, given how open they've been about these things last time. Just like I gave CO heat for trying to initially blame a regional carrier for the Rochester incident, I think it's fair to blame WN for not owning up to what has happened. When you use a 3rd party to do something, especially when it involves working on something that could fall out of the sky (vs. your computer suddenly crashing and ruining your round of Solitaire), you have the ultimate responsibility for their actions, and to vet them properly - as well as to do a cursory inspection of their paperwork and outcomes.

This isn't something obscure like the maintenance guys using an extra 5 lb/ft. of torque to tighten the bolts that hold the PA mic bracket to the wall.... this is a substantial part that can/should easily be traced!

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 5):
Perhaps since SWA is still having ongoing issues and they had to re-ground 40+ airplanes again it warrants closer attention. Once is a blip, twice is a pattern perhaps?

Despite what I said above, I'll continue to fly with WN... the only pattern that matters to me is:

Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 2):
100 million pax/yr and 30 + years of flying with no pax killed



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 2):
Do you have a source that the FAA is looking at WN closer than the other airlines they monitor?

Paging WorldTraveler....still waiting for proof that they are looking at WN closer vs other airlines.

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 3):

"The investigation continues, but the FAA said it does not believe the problem extends to other airlines. Southwest could be fined, the FAA said."

They also didn't believe that the problem existed at WN........... of course they don't believe it's occurring at other airlines - or they would have already stopped it. That doesn't mean that it's not occurring, and I have a feeling that this practice isn't unique to WN (not that it's an excuse)...



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5796 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 12):
Paging WorldTraveler....still waiting for proof that they are looking at WN closer vs other airlines.

What is worse?
Looking closer at WN than other airlines and finding more issues
Not looking closer at WN than other airlines and still finding more issues at WN


User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 13):

What is worse?
Looking closer at WN than other airlines and finding more issues
Not looking closer at WN than other airlines and still finding more issues at WN

That's irrelevant. WT made a claim and I'm simply asking for that claim to be backed up by some shred of evidence. If something is not a fact, it should not be written as such.



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5669 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 2):
100 million pax/yr and 30 + years of flying with no pax killed is enough to make me feel safe on WN. Sorry if you or others disagree...... (in fact, I struggle to name a single 121 carrier I would refuse to fly on safety concerns).

And screw those people on the ground, Right?

I don't think your comment was appropriate. Do you have any idea what the family that lost their child in Chicago have to deal with everyday because of bad decisions made by several layers of WN employees that night.....?


I do agree that 121 carriers here in the US are very safe. You wont catch me on that flying bus but it is not because of safety issues.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineDecoder From Finland, joined Jun 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5571 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
I've already documented for you an instance where a 121 carrier

Excuse the ignorance, but what's a 121 carrier? Is it a reference to an aviation regulations part 121 that possibly specifies the requirements for commercial air travel? Am I close?


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5331 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Let's see what the circumstances actually are. One thing is clear -- the part is deemed safe to use, or the gov't wouldn't have released the a/c for flying.

Let's also see who knew what when, and what's actually involved. The last lunacy with the AA MD80s involved a proper repair that was made to specs that would have satisfied one approved fix, but was implemented under another approved fix, and it was totally a judgment call by the radical FAA inspectors involved that the repair didn't meet the specs of the approved fix, which used a loosy-goosy term to describe a distance measurement.

"Unapproved" parts can mean a million things, and the FAA and the media like to throw these terms around without any context. I'd also like to see how it happened, which will give some insight as to whether there's some kind of systemic failure, a misunderstanding as to authority or approval (i.e. whether a part was authorized to be fabricated, etc.)

As to the Sam's Club example, that's just crap. A better example would be that DL specifies that it only serves Coke made in America. A vendor loads Coke made in Mexico, to the same standards and specs by a Coke bottler. Still "The Real Thing", just not "approved".

So let's hold off on the "discount airline cutting corners on safety" crap until we see just what's going on.

This is nothing like the incident years ago when an AA mechanic proudly told an FAA inspector how he had gotten a transducer spring at the hardware store when they didn't have one in stock, and thus got an a/c off the gate on time, leading to the grounding of the aircraft and a big fine. *That* in my mind is an indication of improper training and safety culture, which has I'm sure long been rectified.


User currently online7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 12):
Paging WorldTraveler....still waiting for proof that they are looking at WN closer vs other airlines.

They are.
They are auditing them more often then usual.
They are also auditing their contract vendors more often then usual.
They also required them to add staff to monitor the vendors due to "lack of oversight."

I don't need to prove it - I am living the dream.

[Edited 2009-08-27 23:33:16]

User currently offlineSteinberger45 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

I think Southwest has always been at a mx disadvantage when it comes to there business model, They have used outside maintenance for most of their heavy work and doing that they lose a degree of control as apposed to other carriers that do a lot more work in house.

User currently offlineMaddog888 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5254 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 14):

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 13):

What is worse?
Looking closer at WN than other airlines and finding more issues
Not looking closer at WN than other airlines and still finding more issues at WN

That's irrelevant

I would beg to disagree. The implications - I repeat implications not facts- are far more worrying.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 17):
As to the Sam's Club example, that's just crap. A better example would be that DL specifies that it only serves Coke made in America. A vendor loads Coke made in Mexico, to the same standards and specs by a Coke bottler. Still "The Real Thing", just not "approved".

The problem is that you only have the Mexican company's word that it is the same standards and specs. No independent testing has been done. Who's to say that the company hasn't swapped some of the ingredients for something looking and tasting the same but cheaper and maybe poisonous? Quality costs and the temptation is always there in the cutthroat world of business.

J


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5162 times:



Quoting Decoder (Reply 16):
Excuse the ignorance, but what's a 121 carrier?

Sorry- that's a peculiarly American term. It's a carrier operating under Part 121 of the FARs - basically anyone you'd think of as an "airline."



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5131 times:



Quoting Maddog888 (Reply 20):
The problem is that you only have the Mexican company's word that it is the same standards and specs. No independent testing has been done. Who's to say that the company hasn't swapped some of the ingredients for something looking and tasting the same but cheaper and maybe poisonous?

Ain't that job of some sort of licensing office in Atlanta (Coke HQ)?



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5131 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 21):
Sorry- that's a peculiarly American term. It's a carrier operating under Part 121 of the FARs - basically anyone you'd think of as an "airline."

Not quite "anyone", since airlines with small capacity aircraft operate under Part 135...


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5110 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 23):
Not quite "anyone", since airlines with small capacity aircraft operate under Part 135...

 checkmark 

...how about "anyone you'd call an 'airline' that operates aircraft greater than nine seats?"



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 OPNLguy : Works for me---I just didn't want anyone to think that everyone operated under Part 121...
26 Post contains links Luv2cattlecall : I'm sure it wasn't a great day for that family. However, imagine how many more people would die on our roads if WN didn't exist and they were forced
27 OPNLguy : Two of the best quotes on Anet...
28 EMBQA : No they do not........
29 Grain : they did outsource it to Canada and El Salvador until Dec 11, 2006 when they gave the contract to a company in Rome, NY called Empire Aero Center
30 EMBQA : Actually they pulled out of Rome, NY and Canada.... The A320's are done in El Salvador and Florida... The E190's are done in Nashville. The company i
31 Pellegrine : I find it amazing that fanboys at this website will do anything to protect their beloved airline/company and not even move one iota in their position
32 Stratosphere : Yeah the FAA grounded en entire fleet at AA for that and yet they turned a totally blind eye to NWA during the 2005 MX strike and all the violations
33 Luv2cattlecall : You do realize that despite being what you might describe as a "WN Fanboy," I actually took the time to start this thread, don't you? No one exonerat
34 HAWK21M : If true.I'm surprised....Did the vendor present faslse documents to prove that they were approved or did southwest not check on this fact. regds MEL.
35 AirframeAS : No matter what happens, at the end of the day, WN is still 100% responsible for any and all mx that is done on their aircraft regardless of the work p
36 Cubsrule : ...by Embraer, right? Seems to me that they probably know a thing or two about 190s.
37 Post contains links Luv2cattlecall : Yep. Back when the E190 was known as the "E-180" (they would push back, have a fault, and make a 180 for the gate), they did all the upgrades at BNA.
38 XT6Wagon : If its not a part that affects safety directly, and they don't have evidence that its more than a paperwork failure... why would they ground the plan
39 Lightsaber : Does that make AA unsafe? The FAA over-reacted with them. But with WN, I'm afraid the parts are not certified. They must be proven analytically, chem
40 Post contains links Lightsaber : Looks like the timeline moved up: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Southw...sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode= Lightsaber
41 Wjcandee : Re Lightsaber's post 40: I don't think the deadline has been moved. I think tomorrow is the expiration of ten days to fix it. Since they used all avai
42 LTBEWR : What could be an issue as to what is an 'approved' part may be a matter of paperwork perhaps not right or all the t's crossed and i's dotted, filed co
43 474218 : So GE/Smecma lets Pratt build GE/Smecma proprietary parts? Who provides the blueprints and specifications Pratt uses to build these parts? Is there a
44 Post contains links and images Luv2cattlecall : The four quotes above made me think of one thing in particular: Concorde. Wasn't an unapproved part that fell off of a CO engine the root of the prob
45 UAL747DEN : Wow is that was the company told you..... It wasn't a great day for that family......? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!! A little kid was riding along i
46 Tdscanuck : We're (severely) conflating an emotional issue with a rational one here. The *fact* that more people would die if Southwest Airlines wasn't flying is
47 Post contains links Wjcandee : I believe that they are reverse-engineered, or re-engineered. For more info: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/vgn-ext...00004601000aRCRD&vgnextfmt=defaul
48 Wjcandee : Remember that a good number of these were the very same people...
49 Fabo : Good point. Remember, pilots like themselves, too. As to the part of killed kid comparing to would-be killed, life lost is not of greater value than
50 Cubsrule : It's probably worth noting, too, that WN had a lot of experience operating at MDW in the winter (probably more than any other carrier, in fact), and
51 Lightsaber : Since the parts have held up for years, even without the proper paper, I could see the FAA granting an in use waiver for parts up to a year on wing.
52 Luv2cattlecall : I know we'll never see eye to eye... but if I was given the option of having even a .1% reduction in traffic fatalities with the stipulation that my
53 Lightsaber : Its the interface for compressor and turbine blades to the rotors. It looks a lot like an upside-down Christmas tree, hence the name. It is just a fu
54 Wjcandee : Dallas Morning News said this morning that they had until 5pm to work out a deal, and that Southwest had made a proposal that was being considered. F
55 Post contains links TUNisia : Our local news has an interesting spin on this... http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_n...en_airport_in_warwick_20090901_las
56 Post contains links OPNLguy : The latest: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...outhwest-faa-reach-settlement.html http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...aa-gives-southwest-until-
57 Lightsaber : Merry Christmas WN. A fair call by the FAA. Lightsaber
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Near Collision At MSP - FAA Investigating posted Thu Sep 23 2010 13:38:13 by kaitak
FAA Fines US & UA For Safety Violations posted Wed Oct 14 2009 21:46:45 by DTWLAX
Anyone Think Air Southwest & Flybe Should Merge? posted Mon Mar 9 2009 09:38:08 by 8herveg
Southwest & Mechs Reach Tentative Agreement posted Fri Dec 5 2008 22:50:23 by Tugger
FAA Investigating Cockpit Videos On Horizon Air posted Wed Oct 8 2008 09:41:52 by Ulfinator
FAA Investigating AA Over MX Again posted Fri May 16 2008 03:55:35 by Apodino
Southwest & Ding! posted Sun May 11 2008 17:35:49 by REALDEAL
Report: FAA Lacks System For Checking Parts posted Sat Mar 1 2008 02:29:53 by PlaneHunter
Southwest & Denver posted Thu Apr 20 2006 01:26:31 by AirEMS
Southwest & Strobe Lights At The Gates posted Sun Aug 7 2005 18:32:33 by Xms3200