Southwest oopsie - ‘woman partially sucked out of window’

Do you think they reuse the o2 masks after they're deployed?
 
frfly172 said:
An uncontained engine failure,sounds like a good word for an explosion.
Click to expand...

Well it's not that it bursts under pressure. It's that something has come from together, and the engine nacelle wasn't able to hold it. The engine is designed to withstand a failure up to a certain amount, but failures more catastrophic than design occur sometimes. It's just very rare.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well it's not that it bursts under pressure. It's that something has come from together, and the engine nacelle wasn't able to hold it. The engine is designed to withstand a failure up to a certain amount, but failures more catastrophic than design occur sometimes. It's just very rare.
Click to expand...

This engine is designed so that when it blows up, it won't hurt you. Except when it blows up more than we were expecting it to. :)
 
dell30rb said:
This engine is designed so that when it blows up, it won't hurt you. Except when it blows up more than we were expecting it to. :)
Click to expand...

That's essentially correct. If you design an engine around the idea that it will contain absolutely anything that could ever go wrong, it'd be at least twice the weight which has a lot of other implications on the wing, remaining aircraft structure, useful load, etc. Uncontained failures happen, but they don't happen much.

Still, I prefer not to sit in line with the fan or propeller. That's the one design feature of the MU-2 I don't like, although the 3-bladed props have a very good reliability history.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
...come from together, ...
Click to expand...

This phrase. Who would’ve known the mileage it has gotten?

I will say I expected the thread title to be SWA motor comes from together.
 
TCABM said:
This phrase. Who would’ve known the mileage it has gotten?

I will say I expected the thread title to be SWA motor comes from together.
Click to expand...

I actually used it in a sentence the other day with a non-PoAer.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's essentially correct. If you design an engine around the idea that it will contain absolutely anything that could ever go wrong, it'd be at least twice the weight which has a lot of other implications on the wing, remaining aircraft structure, useful load, etc. Uncontained failures happen, but they don't happen much.

Still, I prefer not to sit in line with the fan or propeller. That's the one design feature of the MU-2 I don't like, although the 3-bladed props have a very good reliability history.
Click to expand...

Interesting to note that the window that blew out on this jet was quite a ways back from the fan.

So the wind blew the projectile back a ways. If you look at pics, the blown window is near the trailing edge of the wing.
 
dell30rb said:
Interesting to note that the window that blew out on this jet was quite a ways back from the fan.

So the wind blew the projectile back a ways. If you look at pics, the blown window is near the trailing edge of the wing.
Click to expand...

I noticed that. I've been slightly concerned before when I was sitting right next to the nacelle - slightly because you don't expect anything to ever happen. I guess the real worry is about 6-7 rows behind that!
 
dell30rb said:
Interesting to note that the window that blew out on this jet was quite a ways back from the fan.

So the wind blew the projectile back a ways. If you look at pics, the blown window is near the trailing edge of the wing.
Click to expand...
There's a fair amount of leading edge damage to the wing. A lot of pieces went a lot of directions.
 
dell30rb said:
Interesting to note that the window that blew out on this jet was quite a ways back from the fan.

So the wind blew the projectile back a ways. If you look at pics, the blown window is near the trailing edge of the wing.
Click to expand...

Good point. So from this you'd be better off further back.

On MD80s I never liked sitting in one of those rear rows right next to the engine nacelle. Yeah, only a few people have died from it, and they improved the fan design after that happened, but...

It's a mostly irrational fear. I'm far more likely to die flying the MU-2. But at least then it's my own fault.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If you don’t count the little kid they killed on the ground at MDW...

It’s fair to say it’s their first passenger fatality, but not their first fatality
Click to expand...
Yep. And the first fatality in a 121 incident since 2009
 
I am terrified to be on a plane like that.

Not because of the mechanical failure and damage, but the panicking passengers over designed and trained for safety procedures taking place. Yes, oxygen masks are a rare occurrence...but they worked..."We were falling from the sky" on passenger reported...oh, you mean rapid decent that is procedure in loss of cabin pressure..."though we were going to crash"..."brace of impact" was screamed...oh, BTW...planes fly just fine with one engine even with some damage and the landing was described as "routine" by another passenger.

Yes, and if flight malfunction like that is terrifying but is sure seems PAX terror was exacerbated by ignorance of safety procedures and capabilities of both pilot and aircraft. While a death is not be taken lightly...it is a testament to the safety and redundancy of modern aviation that beyond the initial malfunction there was no real danger to the rest of the passengers.
 
I remember back in the day when USN/USAF aircraft had red bands on nacelles where the turbine wheel, and later the fan, was located. Always spooked me.

Sad about the pax.
 
Shawn said:
I am terrified to be on a plane like that.

Not because of the mechanical failure and damage, but the panicking passengers over designed and trained for safety procedures taking place. Yes, oxygen masks are a rare occurrence...but they worked..."We were falling from the sky" on passenger reported...oh, you mean rapid decent that is procedure in loss of cabin pressure..."though we were going to crash"..."brace of impact" was screamed...oh, BTW...planes fly just fine with one engine even with some damage and the landing was described as "routine" by another passenger.

Yes, and if flight malfunction like that is terrifying but is sure seems PAX terror was exacerbated by ignorance of safety procedures and capabilities of both pilot and aircraft. While a death is not be taken lightly...it is a testament to the safety and redundancy of modern aviation that beyond the initial malfunction there was no real danger to the rest of the passengers.
Click to expand...

That's an easy statement to say hours after the fact. Are you sure the pilots KNEW there was no more danger /damage/cascade failure about to happen at that moment? If your answer is no then how can the passengers be expected to know?
 
Interesting that they went to PHL. They were very close to MDT when it happened, and BWI might have been closer. Not second guessing, just noting. Kudos to them for making a decision and not second-guessing or changing plans in the middle.
 
jallen0 said:
That's an easy statement to say hours after the fact. Are you sure the pilots KNEW there was no more danger /damage/cascade failure about to happen at that moment? If your answer is no then how can the passengers be expected to know?
Click to expand...

I am not discounting their fears of the unknown...but my point was by many reports, much of the fear was compounded by ignorance of standard procedures like the rapid decent due to decompression which was described by several as "falling out of the sky to our deaths" when the plane was still under complete control. There was still plenty for passengers to freak out about, but that should not have been one of them.

...or a FA screaming "brace for impact" on a stabilized controlled approach to landing.
 
Valid point. I guess you have to look at the flight attendents then, not the passengers. If I am on a plane and knew nothing about standard procedures I would probably scream like a 6 year old as well thinking I was dying :p Full disclosure, I am a flight nurse so I am long past the screaming in fear stage. But you would be amazed how our passengers react, even on fixed wing transports.
 
X3 Skier said:
I remember back in the day when USN/USAF aircraft had red bands on nacelles where the turbine wheel, and later the fan, was lorated. Always spooked me.
Click to expand...
The markings are still there, just subdued/low-vis
 
Shawn said:
...or a FA screaming "brace for impact" on a stabilized controlled approach to landing.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure of your point but that is standard procedure when there is the least little doubt about the safe outcome of the flight. I think this one qualifies b
 
Driving my wife to the airport, this morning to catch a Southwest flight to Nashville when that news story broke.
Interesting conversation, the rest of the ride.

She made it to Baltimore and just changed planes for the rest of the flight.
 
One of the things I noticed on that recording is that when ATC asks her for SOB and fuel, she (like any good naval aviator) gives her fuel state: 5 hours, but then ATC asks for lbs onboard.

Why does ATC care about lbs? Seems like time remaining would be more useful info.
 
Fearless Tower said:
One of the things I noticed on that recording is that when ATC asks her for SOB and fuel, she (like any good naval aviator) gives her fuel state: 5 hours, but then ATC asks for lbs onboard.

Why does ATC care about lbs? Seems like time remaining would be more useful info.
Click to expand...

They need pounds because the aircraft may be too heavy to land.
 
Fearless Tower said:
One of the things I noticed on that recording is that when ATC asks her for SOB and fuel, she (like any good naval aviator) gives her fuel state: 5 hours, but then ATC asks for lbs onboard.

Why does ATC care about lbs? Seems like time remaining would be more useful info.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’ve always given ATC the fuel in time. I think the pounds question is for ARFF purposes.
 
Yes, the time is for ATC to know how much max time you have in the air. Quantity is for ARFF.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I agree. I’ve always given ATC the fuel in time. I think the pounds question is for ARFF purposes.
Click to expand...

That’s correct. The fire chief needs to know what they’re dealing with if the tanks rupture and it’s on fire.

That wave of burning fuel can reach a long way from the aircraft. Can’t put individuals off-truck firefighters in close if there’s a chance of a rupture with a huge amount of fuel on board until the attack knocks down the fire a bit with long range water cannons.

They also want to know how long it’ll burn. And other calculations of maximum heat possible, etc.

If they think the interior is on fire will they close in and use the new puncture devices to put a deluge of water INSIDE the aircraft if they have that gear.
 
Shepherd said:
They need pounds because the aircraft may be too heavy to land.
Click to expand...

Usually that’s up to the aircrew. If they have to dump they’ll ask ATC where to go to do that. Hear that one all the time on JFK LiveATC. Vectors to the safe dumping area and no other aircraft or major metro below them there. They dump for forever and than come back in.

But the ATC folks usually don’t care too much about landing weight. The airport authority will post-landing, and they’ll note it, but they’re going to inspect the runway anyway and clear it for any possible FOD contamination before re-opening it by driving ops trucks up and down it, anyway. Looking for concrete or other damage, etc.
 
Considering a compromised cabin, shrapnel injuries and even a fatality, I would think crapping over the pedestrians is a bit gratuitous even for POA standards. I can get the ragging on the NOLA missed approach thread, though I think the pilots made a gratuitous attempt imo.

I love flying as much as the next guy but I'm not gonna ----t over a dead pedestrian just because they don't share my affinity for the hobby. Condolences to the family of the deceased. Reports say the injuries circa the blown window folks were pretty gnarly.
 
jallen0 said:
Full disclosure, I am a flight nurse so I am long past the screaming in fear stage. But you would be amazed how our passengers react, even on fixed wing transports.
Click to expand...
They're probably thinking about how much it's going to cost them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top