Southwest oopsie - ‘woman partially sucked out of window’

Grum.Man said:
It has always bugged me that Sully was cast as such a hero and now this lady. I mean, if they had the option to jump out with a parachute on versus landing the airplane and saving hundreds of lives that's one thing. We all train for engine out scenarios from day 1 of private pilot training. As others have said, her and Sully acted on their training and did their job. That's why they make 300k a year or more.
Click to expand...
Like many words, the definition of "hero" has changed. Now it means anyone who does something... good (actually, "not bad").

Back in day, it was used to describe someone who risked their own life for others. The fighter pilot who stays with the stricken plane to fly it away from the populated area rather than eject. The fireman who runs into the burning building to save a life. Etc, etc, etc.

Now Kanye West is a "hero" because he tipped a barista more than 15%.
 
donjohnston said:
Like many words, the definition of "hero" has changed. Now it means anyone who does something... good (actually, "not bad").

Back in day, it was used to describe someone who risked their own life for others. The fighter pilot who stays with the stricken plane to fly it away from the populated area rather than eject. The fireman who runs into the burning building to save a life. Etc, etc, etc.

Now Kanye West is a "hero" because he tipped a barista more than 15%.
Click to expand...
How was walking to school uphill both ways barefoot through snow?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Anyone know who Denny Fitch was?
Click to expand...

Wasn't he the FO in the UAL deal at SUX?

I don't think Sully broke $200,000. And a SW Captain makes mid to upper 200's. I think only widebody Captains routinely make over $300,000 at the legacy carriers.

Nitpicking aside, you make a good point.
Click to expand...

I'm a 22 year WN guy....

FWIW, $300k is on the lower end of the Capt pay spectrum at SW. I am a slacker, flew 102 days last year and I beat that. There are always a couple $500k+ guys, but they, literally, have no lives. One of our HOU Capts made almost $90k in July last year.

I've recently flown with several FOs that made over $300k last year, but they were busting their butts.
 
Slipkid65 said:
Wasn't he the FO in the UAL deal at SUX?



I'm a 22 year WN guy....

FWIW, $300k is on the lower end of the Capt pay spectrum at SW. I am a slacker, flew 102 days last year and I beat that. There are always a couple $500k+ guys, but they, literally, have no lives. One of our HOU Capts made almost $90k in July last year.

I've recently flown with several FOs that made over $300k last year, but they were busting their butts.
Click to expand...
Cool to know we have a SWA guy on the board! Thanks for info!
 
Our WiFi broke mid flight. Almost diverted.
airdale said:
I have some puzzlement about this situation that maybe the Part 121 folks here can comment on:

Everything I have learned about CRM would say that the pilot-not-flying should be working the checklists and talking to ATC. I guess is might be plausible that the FO was PF on that leg and that Shults was PNF, hence the voice we hear on the recordings. But there is a male voice once in a while too.

So ... from a CRM standpoint, considering that we have very limited information, what should we think about how the flight was handled?
Click to expand...
At my airline during an emergency, the PF runs the radios and flies while the PM runs the QRH. The other stuff like contacting dispatch, FA, pax is really the captains discretion who he assigns to do it. The big thing is someone always has to fly the plane. At Delta, I believe it’s always the CA who runs the QRH and the FO flies, regardless who is PF and PM that leg.
 
Larry in TN said:
We was deadheading on the flight and offered to help after the engine failure. He was a check airman returning home from the training center.
Click to expand...
Picking nits, but I think he was a pilot instructor at the time. Even now, most if the instructors aren’t Captains.
 
Ryanb said:
Cool to know we have a SWA guy on the board! Thanks for info!
Click to expand...
oh there's plenty of high roller airline lurkers on here, but we keep them in check if they get uppity. ;) POA is an equal opportunity hater. :D
 
kayoh190 said:
Speaking of high rollers, have you bought that Lance yet???

:D
Click to expand...
mortgage company said they consider it in bad taste to make large cash transactions while in the middle of closing. personally i think my wife got to them cuz shes afraid i might pull an OJ the day of closing. :D
 
FlyingTiger said:
2 very similar incidents in 3 years, and this time with a fatality. SWA might have the portion of it's fleet with these engines grounded very soon.
Click to expand...

The CFM56 is by far the most ubiquitous engine in the airline fleet. This is hardly a Southwest problem.

Greg Bockelman said:
Anyone know who Denny Fitch was?
Click to expand...

You know I do! And, what a hoss.
 
jordane93 said:
Our WiFi broke mid flight. Almost diverted.

At my airline during an emergency, the PF runs the radios and flies while the PM runs the QRH. The other stuff like contacting dispatch, FA, pax is really the captains discretion who he assigns to do it. The big thing is someone always has to fly the plane. At Delta, I believe it’s always the CA who runs the QRH and the FO flies, regardless who is PF and PM that leg.
Click to expand...

You should assign pax to contact dispatch. That’d be a hoot. :)

I mean, you’re Captain now. You haz optionz! LOL.
 
SCCutler said:
The CFM56 is by far the most ubiquitous engine in the airline fleet. This is hardly a Southwest problem.



You know I do! And, what a hoss.
Click to expand...

While the engine is ubiquitous, the maintenance, parts used and procedures are not. Each airline is different, it's not as uniform as one may suspect. I posted one second party manufacturer replacement blade that can be used in these engines, there are probably others. I think South West's push back on the FAA's inspection requirement from the last accident was a foolhardy bean counter mistake that really has no place in aviation, sometimes thinking about the bottom line in these matters is a foolish decision.
 
PaulS said:
While the engine is ubiquitous, the maintenance, parts used and procedures are not. Each airline is different, it's not as uniform as one may suspect. I posted one second party manufacturer replacement blade that can be used in these engines, there are probably others. I think South West's push back on the FAA's inspection requirement from the last accident was a foolhardy bean counter mistake that really has no place in aviation, sometimes thinking about the bottom line in these matters is a foolish decision.
Click to expand...
I guess anything thing is possible but from what I know there are not any systemic issues at SWA regarding maintenance. They are actually top tier from what I’ve heard. Just rumors though I guess. Does anyone know if they own or lease? If they lease there’s no way any non CFM blades were used.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I guess anything thing is possible but from what I know there are not any systemic issues at SWA regarding maintenance. They are actually top tier from what I’ve heard. Just rumors though I guess. Does anyone know if they own or lease? If they lease there’s no way any non CFM blades were used.
Click to expand...
I suppose the ideal case would be something SW was doing that is causing the issue, ideal in this case, means easily identifiable and corrected and not necessarily done with all the engines in service elsewhere. Whatever the case, it needs to be figured out and fixed.
 
PaulS said:
I suppose the ideal case would be something SW was doing that is causing the issue, ideal in this case, means easily identifiable and corrected and not necessarily done with all the engines in service elsewhere. Whatever the case, it needs to be figured out and fixed.
Click to expand...
Depends on perspective as to which is better. If you have SWA stock it might be different. I’ll be surprised if it is because of something SWA was doing. But as you say we will know soon. Pretty sure this is a high priority for everyone involved.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Depends on perspective as to which is better. If you have SWA stock it might be different. I’ll be surprised if it is because of something SWA was doing. But as you say we will know soon. Pretty sure this is a high priority for everyone involved.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but pardon me if I'm still a smidge skeptical, it still ****es me off that the inspections weren't done as originally intended, SWA will pay for the foolhardy decision by the SWA management team.
 
PaulS said:
I hear you, but pardon me if I'm still a smidge skeptical, it still ****es me off that the inspections weren't done as originally intended, SWA will pay for the foolhardy decision by the SWA management team.
Click to expand...
Was not an AD here in the US, and was not an AD even in Europe until this month. And Southwest asked for a longer compliance period, not that the inspections be avoided altogether.
 
wsuffa said:
Was not an AD here in the US, and was not an AD even in Europe until this month. And Southwest asked for a longer compliance period, not that the inspections be avoided altogether.
Click to expand...

Don't know Bill, but I suspect if that is true, then the compliance period will be immediate.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Was the inspection you are referring to mandatory?
Click to expand...

Not sure, I think it was, I just can't imagine delaying it.

I think it's a problem when business majors or English majors are put in charge of decisions like this, it isn't a simple math problem and it's people's lives, find the issue and fix it. I think people lull themselves into a sense of security with these engines because they are so safe, but they are so safe because of inspections, tests and the quick addressing of issues (when the "business" people allow the engineers to work and don't drive the ones with the knowledge out.) These guys, like this SWA president, fool themselves, looking backward at a great record, and using that record to put off what needs to be done. Imagine if pilots flying these aircraft behaved this way, it just wouldn't work, fortunately pilots understand what they are dealing with, these business major execs have no clue and don't listen. They have a lot of clout though and big gonads, which they use more than their brains.
 
-300/-500 which are mostly being retired by the big US domestic carriers if they even have any left. Long long time ago.
 
PaulS said:
Not sure, I think it was, I just can't imagine delaying it.

I think it's a problem when business majors or English majors are put in charge of decisions like this, it isn't a simple math problem and it's people's lives, find the issue and fix it. I think people lull themselves into a sense of security with these engines because they are so safe, but they are so safe because of inspections, tests and the quick addressing of issues (when the "business" people allow the engineers to work and don't drive the ones with the knowledge out.) These guys, like this SWA president, fool themselves, looking backward at a great record, and using that record to put off what needs to be done. Imagine if pilots flying these aircraft behaved this way, it just wouldn't work, fortunately pilots understand what they are dealing with, these business major execs have no clue and don't listen. They have a lot of clout though and big gonads, which they use more than their brains.
Click to expand...

I think you’re being a more than a little over the top. As a engineer who has had to make many recommendations about groundings vs inspection intervals vs pressing on for USAF Aircraft to various operating 4 Star Commanders, the “pure” engineering solution of stopping everything until it’s fixed is seldom the right answer. Two failures and one fatality and that one fatality a bit of a fluke in how many million hours means that even if another failure occurs, I don’t think that the solution of a immediate and total grounding of all CFM56-7B powered aircraft for inspections is even close to being the correct one. Even requiring inspections as fast as possible given trained personnel and certified equipment would not be my choice either.

Imputing such attitudes as you state to the ultimate decision makers is also a bit over the top based on my experience working with the FAA and engine manufacturers in the past. After CFM issued a service bulletin (non mandatory), the inspections started.

BTW, One those Commanders I dealt with was General Robert Dixon, 4 Star Commander of the USAF Tactical Air Command. He was a literature major at Dartmouth and definitely not an engineer although the made d*** sure you knew what you were talking about before he issued the order, usually in line with the technical recommendation. He was in combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

I doubt you will agree but that’s my 2¢ having been there many times. I appreciate your opinion but I just don’t agree. Also I have 2.5 engineering degrees, enjoy reading history, have my pilot certificate and also a business degree so I can be condemned on many counts:D.

Cheers
 
@X3 Skier - if we ever meet remind me to tell you about having to break up the beginning of a fiat fight between an engineer on the F-100 engine project at P&W and an F-15 driver who wasn’t too impressed with his work... many years after he ejected and broke a whole lot of bones doing so.

LOL.

We all just happened to work at the same company and open bar at the Christmas Party and... well, they had some words. Haha.
 
denverpilot said:
@X3 Skier - if we ever meet remind me to tell you about having to break up the beginning of a fiat fight between an engineer on the F-100 engine project at P&W and an F-15 driver who wasn’t too impressed with his work... many years after he ejected and broke a whole lot of bones doing so.

LOL.

We all just happened to work at the same company and open bar at the Christmas Party and... well, they had some words. Haha.
Click to expand...

I can tell a lot of stories having been in the F-15 Program Office at WPAFB in the bad old days of the F100 including one when an engine came from together and the pilot broke his ankle jumping to the ground. The pilot’s father who was an engineer at WPAFB, came roaring into the office threatening mayhem.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
I think you’re being a more than a little over the top. As a engineer who has had to make many recommendations about groundings vs inspection intervals vs pressing on for USAF Aircraft to various operating 4 Star Commanders, the “pure” engineering solution of stopping everything until it’s fixed is seldom the right answer. Two failures and one fatality and that one fatality a bit of a fluke in how many million hours means that even if another failure occurs, I don’t think that the solution of a immediate and total grounding of all CFM56-7B powered aircraft for inspections is even close to being the correct one. Even requiring inspections as fast as possible given trained personnel and certified equipment would not be my choice either.

Imputing such attitudes as you state to the ultimate decision makers is also a bit over the top based on my experience working with the FAA and engine manufacturers in the past. After CFM issued a service bulletin (non mandatory), the inspections started.

BTW, One those Commanders I dealt with was General Robert Dixon, 4 Star Commander of the USAF Tactical Air Command. He was a literature major at Dartmouth and definitely not an engineer although the made d*** sure you knew what you were talking about before he issued the order, usually in line with the technical recommendation. He was in combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

I doubt you will agree but that’s my 2¢ having been there many times. I appreciate your opinion but I just don’t agree. Also I have 2.5 engineering degrees, enjoy reading history, have my pilot certificate and also a business degree so I can be condemned on many counts:D.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet the engineers recommended the inspections and I'm willing to bet they had damn good reason to recommend it, the people who changed that recommendation probably used the exact same logic you employed above about it being a "fluke".

Rather than argue with your straw man, ( the one where you posit I implied that any legitimate engineer would ever consider "stopping everything" as a "pure" solution ), I'll just point out that whoever recommended the compressed time frame inspections was correct at the time, and had it been followed, the lady probably would be home with her family today instead of dead.
 
PaulS said:
I think it's a problem when business majors or English majors are put in charge of decisions like this, it isn't a simple math problem and it's people's lives, find the issue and fix it. I think people lull themselves into a sense of security with these engines because they are so safe, but they are so safe because of inspections, tests and the quick addressing of issues (when the "business" people allow the engineers to work and don't drive the ones with the knowledge out.) These guys, like this SWA president, fool themselves, looking backward at a great record, and using that record to put off what needs to be done. Imagine if pilots flying these aircraft behaved this way, it just wouldn't work, fortunately pilots understand what they are dealing with, these business major execs have no clue and don't listen. They have a lot of clout though and big gonads, which they use more than their brains.
Click to expand...

Southwest has an unquestionable and largely incomparable safety record in the industry established over several decades. They didn't get to that record being run by people who "fool themselves" regarding maintenance and operations.

Prior to this recent incident, to my knowledge Southwest had only one other similar incident which did not result in any serious injuries. That is not enough evidence, in my estimation, to ground an entire fleet using those engines. Southwest was reportedly performing the inspections, starting with their oldest aircraft (which theoretically would represent the most risk), and obviously neither Southwest nor the FAA saw reason for greater urgency. Given recent events, the situation was re-evaluated, as it should have been.

It's always interesting how folks complain about ADs being issued for single or single-digit samples on light aircraft, but have no problem employing 20/20 hindsight to suggest that commercial operators should drop millions of dollars when faced with a similar situation. The reality is that there is always a cost/benefit equation which examines evidence and risk, among other things, when determining the proper course of action. Sometimes you don't know what the right answer is until the improbable occurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top