>>>You're saying that the cone bolt failure caused the engine to come off.
I'm saying that it's -possible- that it could have. From the above NTSB links:
From Delta/1992: "ENGINE SEPARATION WAS THE RESULT OF
THE FAILURE OF
THE AFT CONE BOLT AND
THE ENGINE SECONDARY SUPPORT ASSEMBLY."
From Piedmont/1989: "AN
ITS WING & SEPARATED ENGINE REVEALED THE AFT CONE (ENG MOUNTING) BOLT HAD FAILED FROM FATIGUE, THEN THE TWO FORWARD CONE BOLTS FAILED FROM DUCTILE OVERSTRESS."
From USAir/1989: "AN
EXAM REVEALED THE AFT MOUNT CONE BOLT FOR
THE #2 ENG HAD FAILED FM
FATIGUE THRU THE THREAD RELIEF UNDERCUT RADIUS. "
From Southwest/1986: "THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED WHEN THE NO. 2 ENGINE EXPERIENCED AN
AFT ENGINE MOUNT CONE BOLT FAILURE AND
THE SUBSEQUENT FAILURE OF
THE SECONDARY SUPPORT LINK (STAINLESS STEEL CABLE). "
Now, is there any remaining doubt that an aft cone bolt failure could easily cause an engine separation? Did that absolutely happen in the Air Guinee case? I have no idea--all I ever said was that it could be a possibility, and in the context that it may have been the first thing to depart the aircraft and initiate the subsequent events.
>>>This guy never got airborne....
I don't know--I wasn't there. I'm only going by the posted statement "Almost immediately after the plane took off and was in mid air, we noticed that the left wing was on fire." I'm taking the statement at face value.
>>>I'm somewhat familiar with cone bolt failures. I just don't understand how you can explain a cone bolt failure incident by saying that the engine came off in midair, the gear & stab came off for whatever reason, and the pilots gets it back down on the ground, it skids to a stop and it comes out intact.
Let's try it this way...
Let's assume the aft cone bolt failed and the engine separated as a result, and that was the first thing that happened in the accident sequence. Here's where the all the other variables come in. What happened next? Were they just feet off the ground? 300 feet? 500 feet? How fast were? Did the crew try to put it back on the ground? How heavy/light were they? Did the main gear hit and fail first, or did the nose gear, or did they bank and a wingtip first contact the ground?
I don't have the foggiest idea as to what the answers are, nor what the precise sequence of events actually was. Whatever particular order you wish to put them in doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility an engine separation was the -first- thing that happened. Given that some 737-200 engine separations have been associated with takeoffs within a close distance off the ground, I think it remains a POSSIBILITY here.
Now, if I have to explain this again, someone might not conclude that I'm the one on drugs...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.