heyjoojoo
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:11 am

boxeebox wrote:
Image
Image


Seeing the glimpse of the person in the background really gives a good idea of the size of those pieces of debris. Very big and could have perhaps caused more serious issues on the ground if hadn't landed where it did.
 
heyjoojoo
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:15 am

dampfnudel wrote:
notaxonrotax wrote:
QXAS wrote:
I remember that CNN headline. Never taken them seriously since, for most people it’s political stuff that forces them to lose it for a network, for me it’s this sort of headline in such circumstances.


At least CNN was not wrong.
Yes, it`s pretty low level info; but I bet a lot of people don`t know where the fuel of an aircraft is carried.
Don`t forget, they report to the general public; not to the aviation world only.

CNN gets slammed when they get details wrong, and yet they get slammed if they state the truth; just because it`s too darn obvious to the aviation world.
Yes, I often chuckle with stuff I read and hear in the press with regards to aviation; but this was not a particularly bad example IMHO.
Interesting that you´d abandon a whole network only due to that.
It is my guess that you could catch most press outlets out; when it comes to lower quality articles or bulletins at times.

Fun fact: my 1st solo flight was in a plane that did NOT carry the fuel in the wings.

No Tax On Rotax

I’m not “abandoning” CNN, just giving them some mild criticism. Maybe I’m just too serious for my own good.


CNN doesn't have time to focus on the details. They want prepackaged deals. Unfortunately such stories like this don't often yield that which often prompts them to come up with their own nonsensical narratives. But tend to not give them much credence anyway.

Very interested in seeing what directive that the FAA will come up with in a week.
 
CO953
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:48 am

I wonder if there's any way an improperly latched cowling could cause a vibration that could cause the fan blades to begin bouncing off the rub strip and then one failed. Or, the cowling left first, and during its leaving left just enough moving debris to detach one fan blade. Passengers reported two "bangs." Yes, it's possible that the second "bang"was the window failing. Then again, maybe the second bang was actually a shrapnel impact that caused the window to fail. I wonder where the fan blade went. It's weird seeing the destruction, and only one missing blade.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7761
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:59 am

There were some questions here and elsewhere about who does WN's engine overhaul work. A substantial proportion of Southwest's engines are, of course, CFM56-7s.

About 85 percent of WN's engine overhaul work was, until 2012-ish, performed at CELMA (later GE CELMA after GE bought it), which is located in Petropolis, Brazil.

In 2012-ish, about 15 percent of its CFM overhaul business switched to StandardAero, which has facilities in the US and Canada. GE CELMA now has about 70 percent of the business. Both companies have close relationships with GE: GE owns about 2/3 of CELMA, and StandAero operates certain testing facilities for GE. I believe that Southwest's engines are under a GE-managed engine overhaul program, and these two vendors (and others) perform the touch work for Southwest under that program. (A little bit how ST Aero and EGAT perform the touch work on the Boeing Converted Freighter for Boeing.)
 
User avatar
sergegva
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:12 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:57 am

D L X wrote:
MSPSXMFLIER wrote:
D L X wrote:
Never mind that it looks like her account is pretty god damn accurate so far.

Really? “I just saw a human being fly out of a plane 40,000 feet above”? Hardly accurate.

Multiple reports say that the deceased woman was sucked out the window to her waist. Are you really saying that saying she flew out the window is inaccurate?

Or, are you criticizing the 40,000 feet part? We all know the passengers are not altimeters, so what exact harm are you decrying?

Looks like this woman was bullied into taking down her post by hypercritical and emotional posters.


I could be wrong, but 'till now I found only one passenger saying that she was sucked out the window to her waist.

flybucky wrote:
"Philadelphia’s medical examiner says that a woman killed when she was partially blown out of a Southwest Airlines plane died of blunt impact trauma to her head, neck and torso."

So not asphyxiation. Hopefully she was knocked unconscious immediately and didn't suffer at all. :(

"Sumwalt says that the woman was wearing a seatbelt and sitting next to the window."

https://apnews.com/5dc6f818204c4c299eef8764e826e0ba


If she was wearing a seatbelt, how is it possible that she was out of the window until her waist? Did the seatbelt brake?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2721
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:17 am

A 2 point belt does little if the direction of the force isnt straight into it. This is why race cars use 5 or 6 point belts for safety since it's become quite apparent that you can get an almost magical set of various direction and magnitude of forces as the car is crashing. So they have to cover every angle.

Also few people get the belt remotely tight as it's not comfortable. Last, people are compressible objects and will squeeze out even if it is tight unless you are being pulled into the belt.
 
User avatar
Blimpie
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:55 am

heyjoojoo wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
notaxonrotax wrote:

At least CNN was not wrong.
Yes, it`s pretty low level info; but I bet a lot of people don`t know where the fuel of an aircraft is carried.
Don`t forget, they report to the general public; not to the aviation world only.

CNN gets slammed when they get details wrong, and yet they get slammed if they state the truth; just because it`s too darn obvious to the aviation world.
Yes, I often chuckle with stuff I read and hear in the press with regards to aviation; but this was not a particularly bad example IMHO.
Interesting that you´d abandon a whole network only due to that.
It is my guess that you could catch most press outlets out; when it comes to lower quality articles or bulletins at times.

Fun fact: my 1st solo flight was in a plane that did NOT carry the fuel in the wings.

No Tax On Rotax

I’m not “abandoning” CNN, just giving them some mild criticism. Maybe I’m just too serious for my own good.


CNN doesn't have time to focus on the details. They want prepackaged deals. Unfortunately such stories like this don't often yield that which often prompts them to come up with their own nonsensical narratives. But tend to not give them much credence anyway.

Very interested in seeing what directive that the FAA will come up with in a week.


FUN FACT: A large number of reporting media professionals take their facts from A-net :)
Now get the hell off of my lawn your dang kids!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:02 am

legend500 wrote:
SPREE34 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

The only thing in the ATC/Pilot dialogue I thought was odd is ATC says to go to 11,000 and she confirms, but if it's depressurization aren't you supposed to go to 10,000 or lower? They did end up going that low but shouldn't the pilot have said we depressurized and need a lower altitude?

I fully admit I have no clue how this is handled, so I'm asking for some outside help to explain it to me.


11,000 may have been the lowest safe altitude available at the moment due to lower traffic, or the lowest altitude in the Center's airspace assignable without coordinating with PHL. Even in an emergency, you assign altitudes based on traffic and safety. Does no good to clear an already emergency aircraft into someone else and double the danger. Others below may have been given turns out of the way as well.


I imagine that's probably the case, especially in that area of the country.

A point of trivia - a pilot really only needs to go to around 15,000 feet in order to avoid hypoxia. There's several cities in China that are around 15,000, and La Paz, Bolivia is around 12,000. The usual decent to 10,000 is more about getting an extra margin of safety and relative comfort.


Comparing with cities is not entirely accurate as the body adapts to these altitudes. However since we're talking about a descent, it's not the same as the "continuous" state of a plane over an ocean for example which would fly that altitude for hours.

Being a skydiver I'm used to rapid changes of air pressure and when we jump at 4000-4200m => ~12-14000 feet we don't have oxygen, nor do we feel any ill effect of staying up there for a few minutes.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
dangerhere
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:35 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:16 am

sergegva wrote:
D L X wrote:
MSPSXMFLIER wrote:
Really? “I just saw a human being fly out of a plane 40,000 feet above”? Hardly accurate.

Multiple reports say that the deceased woman was sucked out the window to her waist. Are you really saying that saying she flew out the window is inaccurate?

Or, are you criticizing the 40,000 feet part? We all know the passengers are not altimeters, so what exact harm are you decrying?

Looks like this woman was bullied into taking down her post by hypercritical and emotional posters.


I could be wrong, but 'till now I found only one passenger saying that she was sucked out the window to her waist.

flybucky wrote:
"Philadelphia’s medical examiner says that a woman killed when she was partially blown out of a Southwest Airlines plane died of blunt impact trauma to her head, neck and torso."

So not asphyxiation. Hopefully she was knocked unconscious immediately and didn't suffer at all. :(

"Sumwalt says that the woman was wearing a seatbelt and sitting next to the window."

https://apnews.com/5dc6f818204c4c299eef8764e826e0ba


If she was wearing a seatbelt, how is it possible that she was out of the window until her waist? Did the seatbelt brake?



As mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread, a seatbelt won't be enough to prevent you being sucked sideways, it only prevents against foward and rear movement. Only a cross belt like a fighter pilot would have prevented her being sucked out.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:24 am

I've read the first 8 pages so I'll make a comment that I haven't seen being made so far.

Several people mention that turboprops shedding a blade will probably pierce the fuselage and probably kill someone. While that might be true, you can see at least on ATR and BBD aircraft that the fuselage is actually reinforced parallel to the prop. Someone told me it's mainly about avoiding damage caused by ice, but it might also help in other scenarios.

Then there is the Avro RJ100 (and probably others but I don't know). I flew that aircraft several times and I always take a window seat, once I ended up in a window seat with no window ! It was aligned with the middle of the inboard engine, so probably a high energy turbine blade. Don't know how much reinforcement is involved aside from not having a window. Fortunately for me I could change seats.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
sgbroimp
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:41 pm

Anyone notice the 3 soft dents in the cowl part on the grass? All the other damage we see are rips and tears, nothing soft like that. Could have bounced off something when it hit the ground I guess, but it seems curious and makes me wonder if the aircraft did hit something which started the event. Even possible the event started on the ground or at lower altitude but the blade held on for a while before failing, maybe?
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:55 pm

Aesma wrote:
I've read the first 8 pages so I'll make a comment that I haven't seen being made so far.

Several people mention that turboprops shedding a blade will probably pierce the fuselage and probably kill someone. While that might be true, you can see at least on ATR and BBD aircraft that the fuselage is actually reinforced parallel to the prop. Someone told me it's mainly about avoiding damage caused by ice, but it might also help in other scenarios.

Then there is the Avro RJ100 (and probably others but I don't know). I flew that aircraft several times and I always take a window seat, once I ended up in a window seat with no window ! It was aligned with the middle of the inboard engine, so probably a high energy turbine blade. Don't know how much reinforcement is involved aside from not having a window. Fortunately for me I could change seats.


My understanding is that the extra protection for a bit of ice would not stop a big prop blade. A bit of an apple to oranges comparison. The blade is significantly larger than any ice.

As for the Avro RJ, I imagine it could have been something else like HVAC routing like in the 737 or maybe just some strengthening around the wing.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:13 pm

heyjoojoo wrote:
Is it normal to only lower flaps at 5 on landing following some sort of engine or wing related issue?

Also, did she use reverse thrusters at touchdown?


The QRH for that aircraft calls for flaps 15 for an engine out. But the pilot chose flaps 5 because of control issues. I think there were gusty winds as well so that may have played a part in it.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:14 pm

boxeebox wrote:
Image
Image


Wow - big pieces there. It would make sense that slamming one of those pieces against the fuselage could crack a window, if it impacted in just the right spot.
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:16 pm

What are the measurements for a window frame like this?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14170
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:40 pm

It is good that significant pieces that came off this airplane have been recovered to assist in the investigation. Finding the missing blade would be very useful, but getting it may have to be from sheer dumb luck.

A lot has been made of the Captain, Tammie Jo Schults, being a woman in this accident. As another article I read pointed out, we didn't say Captain Sullenberger was a male pilot. I suspect the attention to her gender here is in parts due to the still tiny percentage of female commercial pilots and even smaller still as Captains, her back story as among the first female Navy fighter pilots, the need to have a very public example that women can do exceptional acts just like a man. This also comes at a time of the 'me too' movement and a need to have in public notice women who despite sexism had been able to rise to a high level in the profession she chose.

I would also note WN's excellent early handling of this accident in the media and with the public. Their CEO was up front on this very quickly, expressed condolences and the reacted with 'go teams' and arranging continuing travel of the passengers who wanted to continue. That is the right way to do it and should be an example to other airlines (ahem...UA).
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:22 pm

heyjoojoo wrote:
PW100 wrote:
heyjoojoo wrote:
What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?


Given that the window was not in line with the fan disk, I don't expect it was shrapnel. If it was, it certainly did not have any significant level of kinetic energy left (which basically is defining characteristic of shrapnel in this sense). High energy shrapnel would have hit the window in the fan plane. Not 7 - 8 windows further aft.


you don't think the window was impacted by a portion of the engine or its components?


Most likely not.

Admittedly, it's a bit juggling with definitions. Engine cowling and inlet duct are not considered engine parts: they are not included in the Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM) or engine IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalogue - basically the complete set of part required to assemble an engine), nor in the engine type certificate (FAA certification which proves/demonstrates the engine design is airworthy). The engine nacelle, its structure, cowling, and inlet duct they are part of the [b]aircraft[b], both in terms of IPC, MM and Type Certificate.

And this is probably a big part of the issue at hand here: Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine is able to cope with a broken fan blade at maximum power levels (check you tube for fan blade off tests). However these tests are performed by the engine manufacturer. Since they don't make nor control the cowling, these tests are not performed with production cowling. Structural integrity of cowling and its attachments is therefore not tested during the fan blade-off test.

I'm not 100% certain (Lightsaber to the rescue?), but I believe that there are no certification standards for cowling and inlet ducting with respect to fan blade-off unbalance conditions.
Therefore it is my expectation that FAA and EASA will be looking very closely to the recent cowling shedding events, and will come up with certification requirements, and associated testing. To many cowling and inlet ducts are leaving planes in-flight, and we now see the danger of that. And it could be even (much) worse, think large cowling ripping of a horizontal stabilizer . . .

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:29 pm

THS214 wrote:
PW100 wrote:
heyjoojoo wrote:
What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?


Given that the window was not in line with the fan disk, I don't expect it was shrapnel. If it was, it certainly did not have any significant level of kinetic energy left (which basically is defining characteristic of shrapnel in this sense). High energy shrapnel would have hit the window in the fan plane. Not 7 - 8 windows further aft.


Hey,

I was thinking that the shrapnel first went outwards hit the wing that changed its trajectory. That would explain that there are no other visible damage on the fuselage (expect under the broken window).



High energy shrapnel doesn’t change trajectory. The soft and thin aluminum skin is not going to do that. High energy debris will cut through aluminum like it is not even there.

At 400+ kts airspeed, the large area cowling and ducting will generate tremendous aerodynamic forces when liberated from its designed position. It is highly likely that this was responsible for puncturing the window, helped by 8.5 psi positive pressure differential.

Of course, it is very likely that the fan blade fracture initiated the sequence of events, leading up to the liberation of the cowling and ducting, but I don’t expect that the fan blade itself contacted the window, for the reasons mentioned in my first posts (#378 and 395).

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:30 pm

Okie wrote:
smithbs wrote:
I read PW100's post as to mean that (insert standard disclaimer for speculative comments based on highly incomplete information here) that the engine failed in a contained manner, but was shocked so badly that the cowling shattered. In other words, the energy was transferred through the fan case and into the structure beyond, which blew away. My hypothesis is that a larger piece of cowling flew back and scored the window enough for it to give way.


Exactly

********

Here is the issue. The test requires that a single blade failure be contained while on a "Test Stand"
That does not emulate the effects of the inlet/containment being exposed to the loads of the wind stream of 250kts plus after or during the test.
That is how Okie sees the situation.

Okie



Exactly my point.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
WIederling
Posts: 8482
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:32 pm

smithbs wrote:
boxeebox wrote:
Image
Image


Wow - big pieces there. It would make sense that slamming one of those pieces against the fuselage could crack a window, if it impacted in just the right spot.


you'll never manage to bring it near the fuselage due to the airflow.

Only high speed shrapnel will manage that. Not a flimsy flappy thing like the engine cowling.

How much of the circumference is there sitting on the grass in one piece 180°..220° ??
( I don't imagine a high speed impact. drag to weight is rather high.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:37 pm

flybucky wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Given that the window was not in line with the fan disk, I don't expect it was shrapnel. If it was, it certainly did not have any significant level of kinetic energy left (which basically is defining characteristic of shrapnel in this sense). High energy shrapnel would have hit the window in the fan plane. Not 7 - 8 windows further aft.


I think the shrapnel could be directly shot out in line with the fan disk, and still hit 10 windows aft with high kinetic energy.

First, the shrapnel would still retain most of the port/starboard direction kinetic energy.

The reason that the shrapnel would hit 10 windows aft is because the air resistance is slowing it down in the fore/aft direction relative to the plane. But actually, that increases the KE relative to the plane. Without air resistance, the KE in the fore/aft direction is 0 relative to the airplane. With air resistance decelerating the shrapnel in the fore/aft direction, it's increasing the velocity relative to the airplane, therefore increasing the KE in the fore/aft direction.

I think it's entirely possible for shrapnel to have hit the window at over 100 mph in the port/starboard direction.


Air resistance will do nothing to high energy debris, because a) of it’s high energy state, and b) because of low aerodynamic surface.

Aerodynamic forces on those huge surfaces of cowling and inlet ducting on the other hand are incredible.

Mind you, I’m not totally ignoring the possibility that fan blade residue contacted the window, but that was after it had lost its kinetic energy - which was absorbed by the fan ducting, which does not appear to show penetration hole(s).
The likelihood of cowling or inlet ducting hitting the window is bigger though.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13844
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:40 pm

PW100 wrote:
heyjoojoo wrote:
PW100 wrote:

Given that the window was not in line with the fan disk, I don't expect it was shrapnel. If it was, it certainly did not have any significant level of kinetic energy left (which basically is defining characteristic of shrapnel in this sense). High energy shrapnel would have hit the window in the fan plane. Not 7 - 8 windows further aft.


you don't think the window was impacted by a portion of the engine or its components?


Most likely not.

Admittedly, it's a bit juggling with definitions. Engine cowling and inlet duct are not considered engine parts: they are not included in the Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM) or engine IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalogue - basically the complete set of part required to assemble an engine), nor in the engine type certificate (FAA certification which proves/demonstrates the engine design is airworthy). The engine nacelle, its structure, cowling, and inlet duct they are part of the [b]aircraft[b], both in terms of IPC, MM and Type Certificate.

And this is probably a big part of the issue at hand here: Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine is able to cope with a broken fan blade at maximum power levels (check you tube for fan blade off tests). However these tests are performed by the engine manufacturer. Since they don't make nor control the cowling, these tests are not performed with production cowling. Structural integrity of cowling and its attachments is therefore not tested during the fan blade-off test.

I'm not 100% certain (Lightsaber to the rescue?), but I believe that there are no certification standards for cowling and inlet ducting with respect to fan blade-off unbalance conditions.
Therefore it is my expectation that FAA and EASA will be looking very closely to the recent cowling shedding events, and will come up with certification requirements, and associated testing. To many cowling and inlet ducts are leaving planes in-flight, and we now see the danger of that. And it could be even (much) worse, think large cowling ripping of a horizontal stabilizer . . .

Rgds,
PW100


I'm lost, which may be my own stupid fault. If the cowling is not defined as part of the engine and the fan blade struck the cowling, then don't we have an uncontained failure here?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:46 pm

ltbewr wrote:
It is good that significant pieces that came off this airplane have been recovered to assist in the investigation. Finding the missing blade would be very useful, but getting it may have to be from sheer dumb luck.

A lot has been made of the Captain, Tammie Jo Schults, being a woman in this accident. As another article I read pointed out, we didn't say Captain Sullenberger was a male pilot. I suspect the attention to her gender here is in parts due to the still tiny percentage of female commercial pilots and even smaller still as Captains, her back story as among the first female Navy fighter pilots, the need to have a very public example that women can do exceptional acts just like a man. This also comes at a time of the 'me too' movement and a need to have in public notice women who despite sexism had been able to rise to a high level in the profession she chose.

I would also note WN's excellent early handling of this accident in the media and with the public. Their CEO was up front on this very quickly, expressed condolences and the reacted with 'go teams' and arranging continuing travel of the passengers who wanted to continue. That is the right way to do it and should be an example to other airlines (ahem...UA).


Yes a single fan blade would fall root down with a good spin going on. It could embed totally into the ground being quite hard to find.

I cannot remember a previous female pilot in a similar story in the media, it is good, because if the system is operating properly the female pilots are as good and possibly better. Otherwise they are pushed out. I have followed the journey of Jessica Taylor for a number of years. She is a transgender pilot that worked with the FAA to change the policy for medical certification. She regularly flies into Aspen, CO, the double black run for airports.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/09/1 ... -equality/
 
dc10co
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:41 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:07 pm

ltbewr wrote:
I would also note WN's excellent early handling of this accident in the media and with the public. Their CEO was up front on this very quickly, expressed condolences and the reacted with 'go teams' and arranging continuing travel of the passengers who wanted to continue. That is the right way to do it and should be an example to other airlines (ahem...UA).

It’s a shame that even in the midst of a tragedy where someone lost their life the fanboy XX vs XX a.net BS still rears it’s ugly head. Yes we all have discussed ad nauseum how badly United flubbed the PR response to a certain incident, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with this situation. A human being literally died, but the fact that WN nailed the PR response and really pulled one over on UA is clearly the most important takeaway. Disgusting.
Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:08 pm

That missing blade could also be inside the engine, and the cowling separation was solely due to vibration during the failure event.

Think about it ... if it twists and contorts the structure enough from vibrations that fasteners or latches fail, the slipstream will rip that cowling right off the airplane.

Look up the infamous picture of the wet-lease AirTran A320 that had latches that weren't latched ... peeled it like an onion.
 
JammyBritton27
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:28 pm

Southwest Airlines fatality - GE Engine in spotlight

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:08 pm

Preliminary investigation by NTSB found that the engine that exploded in mid-air was manufactured by CFM International, a JV between General Electric and Paris-based Safran SA. It also found that the fatality was caused by shrapnel from the engine’s fan blade, which flew into the cabin and injured seven others as well.
Meanwhile, CFM International has come in its defense saying the engine is one of the most reliable ones, and power over 6,700 airliners manufactured by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus. https://news.alphastreet.com/general-el ... -fatality/
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:10 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
PW100 wrote:
heyjoojoo wrote:

you don't think the window was impacted by a portion of the engine or its components?


Most likely not.

Admittedly, it's a bit juggling with definitions. Engine cowling and inlet duct are not considered engine parts: they are not included in the Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM) or engine IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalogue - basically the complete set of part required to assemble an engine), nor in the engine type certificate (FAA certification which proves/demonstrates the engine design is airworthy). The engine nacelle, its structure, cowling, and inlet duct they are part of the [b]aircraft[b], both in terms of IPC, MM and Type Certificate.

And this is probably a big part of the issue at hand here: Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine is able to cope with a broken fan blade at maximum power levels (check you tube for fan blade off tests). However these tests are performed by the engine manufacturer. Since they don't make nor control the cowling, these tests are not performed with production cowling. Structural integrity of cowling and its attachments is therefore not tested during the fan blade-off test.

I'm not 100% certain (Lightsaber to the rescue?), but I believe that there are no certification standards for cowling and inlet ducting with respect to fan blade-off unbalance conditions.
Therefore it is my expectation that FAA and EASA will be looking very closely to the recent cowling shedding events, and will come up with certification requirements, and associated testing. To many cowling and inlet ducts are leaving planes in-flight, and we now see the danger of that. And it could be even (much) worse, think large cowling ripping of a horizontal stabilizer . . .

Rgds,
PW100


I'm lost, which may be my own stupid fault. If the cowling is not defined as part of the engine and the fan blade struck the cowling, then don't we have an uncontained failure here?


The fan blade (probably) did not hit the cowling. The theory is that the cowling (and inlet ducting) gave away because the engine kept running with the fan blade off, but at high unbalance condition. This caused extreme vibrations which in turn (probably) resulted in loss of structural integrity of the cowling and/or it attachment points.

Take a house ventilator, take one blade off, and run it to its max rpm and see what happens . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:16 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHU7PBIezB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcALjMJbAvU

Please note that
1) no debris is going through the fan case in these videos. Lots of things going on (incredible vibration levels) but no release of high energy debris in plane of rotation;
2) dediacted test dusting is used - no actual flight hardware.

Just imagine what this does does to flumsy cowlings . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Flybird
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:03 pm

Re: Southwest Airlines fatality - GE Engine in spotlight

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:27 pm

All eyes on CFM56-7B engines now
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

Re: Southwest Airlines fatality - GE Engine in spotlight

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:39 pm

CFM recommended airlines examine the blades a year ago. The EU safety agency mandated it a month ago. Where was the FAA? Now there will be a rush, further providing opportunities to miss an issue.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:49 pm

Go look up the videos of the planes where blades broke off, but the cowling and engine core stayed (largely) intact ... the vibration in those planes from the windmilling (and off balance) engines are insane. It's like being inside a rock crusher, that level of bone rattling vibration.

It hasn't been noted if this one windmilled or not ... I'd guess probably not ... once it finished shaking itself to pieces, it was probably seized ... no doubt that was also what helped lead to that initial 41 degree left bank. HUGE air resistance.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:50 pm

stratosphere wrote:
heyjoojoo wrote:
Is it normal to only lower flaps at 5 on landing following some sort of engine or wing related issue?

Also, did she use reverse thrusters at touchdown?


The QRH for that aircraft calls for flaps 15 for an engine out. But the pilot chose flaps 5 because of control issues. I think there were gusty winds as well so that may have played a part in it.


While working as an Air Traffic Controller in Thailand During Vietnam I worked a severly battle damages F4 Phantom on a PAR final that lost the rudder and all stabilator trim tabs and hydraulics. The PIC landed it at 220 knots cause he didn't know if it would hold together. THe only thing that stopped it on our 8,000 ft runway was the arresting barrier. So yes the condition, the ability to control the aircraft and the pilots gut feelings and instincts all play a role in determining the settings and speeds to use.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2608
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:57 pm

PW100 wrote:

And this is probably a big part of the issue at hand here: Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine is able to cope with a broken fan blade at maximum power levels (check you tube for fan blade off tests). However these tests are performed by the engine manufacturer. Since they don't make nor control the cowling, these tests are not performed with production cowling. Structural integrity of cowling and its attachments is therefore not tested during the fan blade-off test.

I'm not 100% certain (Lightsaber to the rescue?), but I believe that there are no certification standards for cowling and inlet ducting with respect to fan blade-off unbalance conditions.
Therefore it is my expectation that FAA and EASA will be looking very closely to the recent cowling shedding events, and will come up with certification requirements, and associated testing. To many cowling and inlet ducts are leaving planes in-flight, and we now see the danger of that. And it could be even (much) worse, think large cowling ripping of a horizontal stabilizer . . .

Rgds,
PW100


Nacelle's (Inlet, Fan Cowl and Thrust reversers) are all required to meet CFR 25.367 and are tested for FBO and subsequent windmilling on a static test stand. I've witnessed several tests myself. I do not, however, know what amendment level and which cert basis the NG inlet was required to meet. So it is possible it never received such testing. The new Max inlets would have though.

I will not make a statement saying the loss of the inlet wasn't due to the unbalanced condition, but I will say it is highly improbable. Far more likely that the blade caused damage to the inner acoustic barrel as it departed and caused a scooping effect which resulted in the secondary failure of the inlet unzipping and letting go.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Interesting article I just read as it relates to this incident and the CFM56 engine.

http://www.aviationpros.com/press_relea ... ove-safety
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:05 pm

Landed at 220kts ... sheesh, that says something for the engineering of the landing gear. Those wheels were SPINNING!
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5613
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:23 pm

litz wrote:
Landed at 220kts ... sheesh, that says something for the engineering of the landing gear. Those wheels were SPINNING!


Yes. Incidentally, that's the take-off speed of the Concorde.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
texdravid
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 pm

Is this plane a total write off?
How come more of the plane didn’t come off with the velocity of the wind?
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
bhill
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:32 pm

Does it seem odd that the majority of the rivet holes of the cowling are not more "oblong" or torn?
Carpe Pices
 
N6168E
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:57 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:05 pm

litz wrote:
Landed at 220kts ... sheesh, that says something for the engineering of the landing gear. Those wheels were SPINNING!

Where did you see that?
flybucky wrote:
Statements from the NTSB update Wed Apr 18, 2018 afternoon

41 degree left roll for a few seconds.
Flaps 5 instead of 30 or 40.
Touchdown speed 165 knots / 190 mph. Normal is around 135 knots.
 
wowlookplanes
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:59 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:13 pm

litz was referring to freakyrat's post.
 
Texraid
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:26 pm

ubeema wrote:
Statement of Captain and FO of SW1380:
https://twitter.com/southwestair/status ... 51232?s=21

Thanks for posting that. A very professional and class act all the way around. However, a few of the comments are reprehensible with morons only thinking of their own safety and not grasping or acknowledging gravity and loss of the situation.
 
heyjoojoo
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:35 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
PW100 wrote:
heyjoojoo wrote:

you don't think the window was impacted by a portion of the engine or its components?


Most likely not.

Admittedly, it's a bit juggling with definitions. Engine cowling and inlet duct are not considered engine parts: they are not included in the Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM) or engine IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalogue - basically the complete set of part required to assemble an engine), nor in the engine type certificate (FAA certification which proves/demonstrates the engine design is airworthy). The engine nacelle, its structure, cowling, and inlet duct they are part of the [b]aircraft[b], both in terms of IPC, MM and Type Certificate.

And this is probably a big part of the issue at hand here: Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine is able to cope with a broken fan blade at maximum power levels (check you tube for fan blade off tests). However these tests are performed by the engine manufacturer. Since they don't make nor control the cowling, these tests are not performed with production cowling. Structural integrity of cowling and its attachments is therefore not tested during the fan blade-off test.

I'm not 100% certain (Lightsaber to the rescue?), but I believe that there are no certification standards for cowling and inlet ducting with respect to fan blade-off unbalance conditions.
Therefore it is my expectation that FAA and EASA will be looking very closely to the recent cowling shedding events, and will come up with certification requirements, and associated testing. To many cowling and inlet ducts are leaving planes in-flight, and we now see the danger of that. And it could be even (much) worse, think large cowling ripping of a horizontal stabilizer . . .

Rgds,
PW100


I'm lost, which may be my own stupid fault. If the cowling is not defined as part of the engine and the fan blade struck the cowling, then don't we have an uncontained failure here?


I'm sort of leaning in this direction too. From all the discussion, I've seen in this thread thus far, it seems that debris didn't just stay confined within the engine encasement.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:47 pm

N6168E wrote:
litz wrote:
Landed at 220kts ... sheesh, that says something for the engineering of the landing gear. Those wheels were SPINNING!

Where did you see that?
flybucky wrote:
Statements from the NTSB update Wed Apr 18, 2018 afternoon

41 degree left roll for a few seconds.
Flaps 5 instead of 30 or 40.
Touchdown speed 165 knots / 190 mph. Normal is around 135 knots.


N6168E was not referring to this aircraft. In my post I was talking about a fighter aircraft I worked during Vietnam that was severely battle damaged and had to make a no flap landing etc. and comparing it to the higher airspeed used by this aircraft with the damage it had.
 
THS214
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:55 pm

lightsaber wrote:
THS214 wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Because they were in the middle of a dire emergency maybe? Open letter to the Flight Crew: "If you are in the middle of an emergency with the possibility of injury, death or loss of the aircraft, as a passenger, you have my permission to devote 100% of your efforts and resources to that emergency.

Besides that, with an explosive decompression no one would have heard an announcement because of the noise. The cabin crew was very busy as well with ensuring everyone donned there Oxygen masks and other tasks they are trained to do in an emergency.


Why not just say "the airspace is all yours."

Impossible. You cannot just clear airspace with so many aircraft approaching a major airport.
Pilots need to convey information on the ground. The airport is scrambling to clear a runway and fire fighting zone. ATC is trying to get aircraft on the ground as eventually they will run out of fuel and create another emergency. Getting ground aircraft airborne might clear more safe space on the ground. There are processes to clear enough safe space for the distressed flight while still working to land a majority of the pattern's aircraft. You do realize PHL is a multi-runway airport? You do realize other aircraft must be diverted into approved (safe) travel lanes? One aircraft cannot be given the whole airspace. That would have disrupted the entire East Coast economy and done nothing to get the plane on the ground. Aircraft must use set "offramps" to get out of the approach or other flight patterns.

That is the equivalent of saying one ambulance gets the whole 405 freeway cleared with cars just driving over the landscaping to get off the road. Clearing a freeway is simpler than clearing airspace as aircraft cannot stop except on the ground. ;) Aircraft must be put into patterns to circle out of the way while the pattern continues to accept new arriving aircraft. And yea, its a racetrack, not a circle... I simplified.

Lightsaber


What I quoted was that you need to keep it simple. Off course common sense prevail. This plane was around PHL. ATC only needed to clear traffic ahead of this plane. Because of this mayday, if someone was running low on fuel, they divert. When its possible ATC can direct that mayday plane and pilots either accept it or not. Its still co-operation as much as possible.

ATC has protocol for this kind of events. They can clear pretty much everything in just a minute. Think about Cactus 1549. Teterboro and LaGuardia were ready for them in a minute.

Off Course the whole airspace and the whole airport dont need to be shut down. Only the part that is needed for the mayday plane.

I am not familiar of 405 freeway but where i am from when I see lights and hear sirens of an ambulance I give way and so do all the others. Therefore the traffic flow is not interrupted but the ambulance has a clear way.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:09 pm

Very sad that there was a loss of life in this accident.

I listened to the ATC recordings. Excellent job both by the pilots and ATC.

I couldn't hear either the pilots declaring an emergency or the ATC asking if they would like to declare an emergency. Maybe this piece is missing from the recordings available in Youtube, or is there some other reason why emergency declaration was not relevant?
 
estorilm
Posts: 666
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:35 pm

WIederling wrote:
smithbs wrote:
boxeebox wrote:
Image
Image


Wow - big pieces there. It would make sense that slamming one of those pieces against the fuselage could crack a window, if it impacted in just the right spot.


you'll never manage to bring it near the fuselage due to the airflow.

Only high speed shrapnel will manage that. Not a flimsy flappy thing like the engine cowling.

How much of the circumference is there sitting on the grass in one piece 180°..220° ??
( I don't imagine a high speed impact. drag to weight is rather high.

On the contrary, it would explain why it impacted 10 or so rows back from the engine itself.

The path that cowl takes as it blows off and interacts with the slipstream is incredibly complicated, if a corner of it "hung up" and was then ripped off as it faces a certain direction, it could easily be "thrown" up-and-aft. Airflow over the fuselage is complicated to model, there could be many things at play which might tend to pull it in a certain direction.

Hypothetically per your assumption, for the blade to travel 10-or-so feet inward, but 15-20 feet aft automatically tells us that it's no longer "high speed shrapnel" as the airspeed and drag on the blade would have had more of an impact on its' trajectory than its own kinetic energy.

Personally I think this is a case of "the golden BB" and a chunk of the cowl assembly hit the window just right. Decent altitude / pressure differential didn't help matters.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:42 pm

Making a big deal out of the pilot being a woman will not necessarily help women's (or in my opinion society) cause. After all misogynists will just argue that everything is fine for women if that one managed to get a man's job.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: WN emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:49 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
With all of the bickering that occurs amongst fanboys here, it's nice to see the AA stair truck and buses out assisting. I'm certain WN would return the favor at BWI or DEN.


Anybody would want to assist those passengers. With American being the dominant carrier at PHL it would be incumbent upon them to help in any way they could Just as it would be at SFO with United. And? we have had WN airplanes in our Hangars before so it's not like we wouldn't again if they needed it.
 
N6168E
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:57 am

Re: WN 1380 LGA-DAL emergency landing at PHL, 1 fatality

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:05 pm

freakyrat wrote:
N6168E wrote:
litz wrote:
Landed at 220kts ... sheesh, that says something for the engineering of the landing gear. Those wheels were SPINNING!

Where did you see that?
flybucky wrote:
Statements from the NTSB update Wed Apr 18, 2018 afternoon

41 degree left roll for a few seconds.
Flaps 5 instead of 30 or 40.
Touchdown speed 165 knots / 190 mph. Normal is around 135 knots.


N6168E was not referring to this aircraft. In my post I was talking about a fighter aircraft I worked during Vietnam that was severely battle damaged and had to make a no flap landing etc. and comparing it to the higher airspeed used by this aircraft with the damage it had.


Sorry. I see that now.
 
greenair727
Posts: 1231
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:27 am

Re: WN emergency landing at PHL

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:09 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
With all of the bickering that occurs amongst fanboys here, it's nice to see the AA stair truck and buses out assisting. I'm certain WN would return the favor at BWI or DEN.


Anybody would want to assist those passengers. With American being the dominant carrier at PHL it would be incumbent upon them to help in any way they could Just as it would be at SFO with United. And? we have had WN airplanes in our Hangars before so it's not like we wouldn't again if they needed it.


I agree. Even UA would help in a situation like this (though they'd be sure to charge the airline for any passengers they're carrying for them).

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos