D L X
Posts: 12464
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:43 pm

Guys, you don't need to pierce a pressure vessel to make it fail. A good scratch or a puncture might suffice. Anything that can substantially weaken the pressure vessel could cause it to burst at that point.

I don't think you need the whole cowling to hit the fuselage. It could have been a high speed nut or bolt, though from the photos, I would bet it was a part that was on the order of 5-6 inches long.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:48 pm

Luckily this incident happened with a number of diversion options for an emergency landing. If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out? I would imagine that the plane would have to immediately descend to 10,000 ft due to lack of oxygen. But,

1) Would the plane be able to fly 4+ hours to the nearest diversion airport? What would be the aircraft performance at 10,000 ft & wouldn't it run out of fuel long before it reaches the diversion airport? I am guessing the answer depends on the type of aircraft but what is the best and worst case scenario by aircraft type?

2) With essential pieces of the debris lost in water (the AF A380 engine pieces were at least recovered from Greenland); how would the investigators piece together what happened? Would the remaining engine parts on the plane tell the story?
 
hivue
Posts: 1902
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:29 pm

747megatop wrote:
If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out?


I think this is a valid point. There apparently were 2 failures in this event: (1) a fan blade failed (separated due to metal fatigue or whatever), and (2) a window failed (due probably to it or the fuselage area nearby being struck by debris from the failed engine). Do all of the stringent ETOPS rules and regulations take into account multiple simultaneous failures (aside from multiple simultaneous engine failures)?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:34 pm

747megatop wrote:
Luckily this incident happened with a number of diversion options for an emergency landing. If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out? I would imagine that the plane would have to immediately descend to 10,000 ft due to lack of oxygen. But,

1) Would the plane be able to fly 4+ hours to the nearest diversion airport? What would be the aircraft performance at 10,000 ft & wouldn't it run out of fuel long before it reaches the diversion airport? I am guessing the answer depends on the type of aircraft but what is the best and worst case scenario by aircraft type?

2) With essential pieces of the debris lost in water (the AF A380 engine pieces were at least recovered from Greenland); how would the investigators piece together what happened? Would the remaining engine parts on the plane tell the story?


The pilot said they had 5 hours of fuel on board.
 
User avatar
aloha73g
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:30 pm

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:50 pm

hivue wrote:
747megatop wrote:
If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out?


I think this is a valid point. There apparently were 2 failures in this event: (1) a fan blade failed (separated due to metal fatigue or whatever), and (2) a window failed (due probably to it or the fuselage area nearby being struck by debris from the failed engine). Do all of the stringent ETOPS rules and regulations take into account multiple simultaneous failures (aside from multiple simultaneous engine failures)?


I believe ETOPS regulations require that they have enough fuel to fly to a diversion airport on one engine, at a low altitude due to a depressurization event. So, basically it takes this exact scenario into account:

Identification of the most critical fuel-use scenario and most critical point for a diversion during a flight, considering possible one-engine failure and/or airplane depressurization with all engines operating or one engine out.

from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... aMXrqj9ks9

-Aloha!
Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:07 pm

mcdu wrote:
Southwest ran afoul of the FAA a few years ago for not complying with proper repairs on the skin lap joints of the classics. They were hit with a hefty 12 million dollar fine back then. If this goes down the same path in the investigation Southwest will have a lot of explaining to do about their maintenance. Two events for them in close proximity is a trend.


Well, not the same issue but the attitude towards maintenance however...

Southwest challenged engine maker CFM over proposed FAA inspections
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2451
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:35 pm

Erebus wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Southwest ran afoul of the FAA a few years ago for not complying with proper repairs on the skin lap joints of the classics. They were hit with a hefty 12 million dollar fine back then. If this goes down the same path in the investigation Southwest will have a lot of explaining to do about their maintenance. Two events for them in close proximity is a trend.


Well, not the same issue but the attitude towards maintenance however...

Southwest challenged engine maker CFM over proposed FAA inspections


Clearly an attitude of knowing the engine better than those whom designed and built it. Why you push back at the engine manufacturer is beyond me.
 
User avatar
B727skyguy
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:23 am

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:45 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
So on a Discord server I'm on someone posted a pic of passengers with the masks on.

Well, I say on. More like leaned up against their mouth or being held there. Totally missing the fact it's supposed to go over your nose and there is an elastic band to keep it on. :/

That was the first thing I noticed in those pics. I couldn't understand why people were covering only their mouths with the mask and weren't using the elastic bands to hold the mask on. Perhaps the cabin crew were making jokes about how to use the O2 masks during the safety briefing. They're known to joke about safety.

It reminded me of a flight I took about 10 years ago PHX-LAS. When demonstrating the proper use of the life vest, the flight attendant in my section deliberately put the vest on backward and then made funny faces like he was the class clown. It was very inappropriate. On top of that, I noticed when the plane was taxiing to the gate in PHX, the pilots did not have the anti-collision beacons on. On takeoff, the pilots forgot to turn on the Fasten Seat Belt sign. They also forgot it on landing at LAS. I asked them about it as I deplaned. The First Officer got a sheepish look on his face and said he hoped I was the only one who noticed the oversight and hoped that an FAA inspector wasn't onboard. Safety is nothing to joke about.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

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

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:46 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
Erebus wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Southwest ran afoul of the FAA a few years ago for not complying with proper repairs on the skin lap joints of the classics. They were hit with a hefty 12 million dollar fine back then. If this goes down the same path in the investigation Southwest will have a lot of explaining to do about their maintenance. Two events for them in close proximity is a trend.


Well, not the same issue but the attitude towards maintenance however...

Southwest challenged engine maker CFM over proposed FAA inspections


Clearly an attitude of knowing the engine better than those whom designed and built it. Why you push back at the engine manufacturer is beyond me.


Although in fairness, the article says that AA and United also made objections about the compliance timeline for inspections, so it wasn't just Southwest. CFM's recommendation certainly seems like it would have been more prudent from a pure safety perspective though.
 
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 11:58 pm

B727skyguy wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
So on a Discord server I'm on someone posted a pic of passengers with the masks on.

Well, I say on. More like leaned up against their mouth or being held there. Totally missing the fact it's supposed to go over your nose and there is an elastic band to keep it on. :/

That was the first thing I noticed in those pics. I couldn't understand why people were covering only their mouths with the mask and weren't using the elastic bands to hold the mask on. Perhaps the cabin crew were making jokes about how to use the O2 masks during the safety briefing. They're known to joke about safety.

It reminded me of a flight I took about 10 years ago PHX-LAS. When demonstrating the proper use of the life vest, the flight attendant in my section deliberately put the vest on backward and then made funny faces like he was the class clown. It was very inappropriate. On top of that, I noticed when the plane was taxiing to the gate in PHX, the pilots did not have the anti-collision beacons on. On takeoff, the pilots forgot to turn on the Fasten Seat Belt sign. They also forgot it on landing at LAS. I asked them about it as I deplaned. The First Officer got a sheepish look on his face and said he hoped I was the only one who noticed the oversight and hoped that an FAA inspector wasn't onboard. Safety is nothing to joke about.


Forgetting the Fasten Seat Belt sign on both take off AND landing? But then to not turn on the ACB's.... OMG... what the heck?
 
pallvidar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:15 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:20 am

Having listened to the ATC recordings I am having a hard time piecing together the roles of the pilots in this emergency. Why is the captain on the frequency most of the time and not the FO if she was Pilot Flying? Does anyone have insight on this?
 
RogerMurdock
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:01 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:22 am

Finn350 wrote:
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?


People seem rather fixated on the lack of an emergency declaration on the available ATC recordings. Eventually we will get the CVR transcript and we will know for sure. But it seems to me that there was no confusion at any point about the severity and gravity of the situation. The initial contact with ATC informed of engine fire, and the plane was already in an uncleared rapid descent. Declaring an emergency at that point is a formality, everyone knows what's up. At some point in the checklist, they probably squawked 7700. New York ARTCC would have called ahead to the PHL approach and tower to inform them of the situation.
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:47 am

pallvidar wrote:
Having listened to the ATC recordings I am having a hard time piecing together the roles of the pilots in this emergency. Why is the captain on the frequency most of the time and not the FO if she was Pilot Flying? Does anyone have insight on this?


It would would appear the CA was Pilot Not Flying on this leg, and the FO was Pilot Flying. Seems the CA made the command decision to continue as PNF and run the lists, inventory what had happened, and plan the course of action. The FO is completely competent to continue as PF, or he wouldn't be in the cockpit.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:04 am

SPREE34 wrote:
pallvidar wrote:
Having listened to the ATC recordings I am having a hard time piecing together the roles of the pilots in this emergency. Why is the captain on the frequency most of the time and not the FO if she was Pilot Flying? Does anyone have insight on this?


It would would appear the CA was Pilot Not Flying on this leg, and the FO was Pilot Flying. Seems the CA made the command decision to continue as PNF and run the lists, inventory what had happened, and plan the course of action. The FO is completely competent to continue as PF, or he wouldn't be in the cockpit.


Exactly the F/O was a former Air Force guy but as usual in these events the Captain gets all the accolades even though it is a "team effort" including the F/A's who in the USAIR Sully incident landing in the Hudson River were a big reason everyone survived. I have to say I am getting annoyed by the recent coverage of this SW incident. The media in it's apparent lack of usual knowledge of aviation is no surprise but the Daily Beast trying to say what Tammie Jo Shults did was somehow superior to Sully's landing on the Hudson because the A320 is fly by wire. Talk about a writer who is a moron. These two accidents are no where near the same. Fly by wire or not you lose both engines with very little altitude you options are very limited. The SW airplane had one engine still turning and plenty of altitude something Sully and Jeff Skiles did not have.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:06 am

hivue wrote:
747megatop wrote:
If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out?


I think this is a valid point. There apparently were 2 failures in this event: (1) a fan blade failed (separated due to metal fatigue or whatever), and (2) a window failed (due probably to it or the fuselage area nearby being struck by debris from the failed engine). Do all of the stringent ETOPS rules and regulations take into account multiple simultaneous failures (aside from multiple simultaneous engine failures)?


This event would have been covered in the ETOPS scenarios. One engine at 10,000’ at the critical point is covered. Surprisingly, a simple depressurization at 10,000’ is usually more limiting than the depressurization with an engine failure.
 
Tn55337
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:36 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:37 am

Assuming the ntsb does pinpoint it was a piece of the engine cowling that struck and broke the window would it make sense to try and design cowlings to shatter into thousands of little pieces with very little mass to do damage with?
 
Brucekn
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:20 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:43 am

SPREE34 wrote:
pallvidar wrote:
Having listened to the ATC recordings I am having a hard time piecing together the roles of the pilots in this emergency. Why is the captain on the frequency most of the time and not the FO if she was Pilot Flying? Does anyone have insight on this?


It would would appear the CA was Pilot Not Flying on this leg, and the FO was Pilot Flying. Seems the CA made the command decision to continue as PNF and run the lists, inventory what had happened, and plan the course of action. The FO is completely competent to continue as PF, or he wouldn't be in the cockpit.


My understanding is that on most airlines, the CA needs to communicate and get a plan together when emergency conditions exist, leaving the FO to fly the aircraft (which as you suggest he/she is very capable of doing). Once the plan comes together, I would expect the CA to take over the flying and have the FO assist as per normal. But different airlines have different SOPs.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:46 am

Finn350 wrote:
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?


I never heard either a Mayday or an Emergency declared, but it was obvious listening to the recording that the instant the pilot reported fire, single engine, and descending (note didn't ask for permission, stated they already WERE descending) the controller inferred the emergency situation and treated it as such.

Sometimes the pilots don't actually have time to shout out Mayday.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:50 am

smokeybandit wrote:
747megatop wrote:
Luckily this incident happened with a number of diversion options for an emergency landing. If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out? I would imagine that the plane would have to immediately descend to 10,000 ft due to lack of oxygen. But,

1) Would the plane be able to fly 4+ hours to the nearest diversion airport? What would be the aircraft performance at 10,000 ft & wouldn't it run out of fuel long before it reaches the diversion airport? I am guessing the answer depends on the type of aircraft but what is the best and worst case scenario by aircraft type?

2) With essential pieces of the debris lost in water (the AF A380 engine pieces were at least recovered from Greenland); how would the investigators piece together what happened? Would the remaining engine parts on the plane tell the story?


The pilot said they had 5 hours of fuel on board.


That just adds to the kudos of an incredible job ... normally, in an engine out scenario, you can (if you want to) circle a bit and burn off fuel.

In this case, there was no question, the airplane was going onto the nearest suitable runway ASAP, and they did so with an incredibly overweight aircraft.

They landed FAST, with flaps 5, and down a thrust reverser, too ... with an airplane of questionable structural integrity ..... AND it was way, way overweight.

It's like some sick instructor was throwing simulator scenarios at them trying to force them to fail.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:08 am

Passedv1 wrote:
hivue wrote:
747megatop wrote:
If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out?


I think this is a valid point. There apparently were 2 failures in this event: (1) a fan blade failed (separated due to metal fatigue or whatever), and (2) a window failed (due probably to it or the fuselage area nearby being struck by debris from the failed engine). Do all of the stringent ETOPS rules and regulations take into account multiple simultaneous failures (aside from multiple simultaneous engine failures)?


This event would have been covered in the ETOPS scenarios. One engine at 10,000’ at the critical point is covered. Surprisingly, a simple depressurization at 10,000’ is usually more limiting than the depressurization with an engine failure.

how so? how is a simple depressurization more limiting than a depressurization with an engine failure?
 
alasizon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:16 am

litz wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
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?


I never heard either a Mayday or an Emergency declared, but it was obvious listening to the recording that the instant the pilot reported fire, single engine, and descending (note didn't ask for permission, stated they already WERE descending) the controller inferred the emergency situation and treated it as such.

Sometimes the pilots don't actually have time to shout out Mayday.


If you start descending uncommanded and advise ATC you are doing it due to a critical incident on-board, every controller is going to consider you an emergency and by the time they were around FL250, they were already squawking 7700. From experience, I can tell you that the uncommanded descent will always draw interest from the controller and once you explain, rarely will there be any uncertainty about whether or not you are an emergency.
Manager on Duty & Tower Planner
 
WNbob
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:36 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:59 am

Tell u what, my next flight with these 737s, I will be sitting in FRONT of the engines.
 
flyboy730
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:16 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:18 am

A lot of people are asking about the pilot flying (PF), pilot not flying (PNF) roles. At my company, the PF gives the briefing. Part of the briefing is “I will fly and communicate, you will fix.” I believe the reason for this is to allow the PNF the ability to run the quick reference checks without interruption.
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:27 am

WkndWanderer wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
Erebus wrote:

Well, not the same issue but the attitude towards maintenance however...

Southwest challenged engine maker CFM over proposed FAA inspections


Clearly an attitude of knowing the engine better than those whom designed and built it. Why you push back at the engine manufacturer is beyond me.


Although in fairness, the article says that AA and United also made objections about the compliance timeline for inspections, so it wasn't just Southwest. CFM's recommendation certainly seems like it would have been more prudent from a pure safety perspective though.

Really calls into question the airlines' unwavering commitment to safety. I recall CEO Gary Kelly saying in the video WN posted:
The safety of our customers and our crew is always our uncompromising priority

It seems like WN (and UA and AA) were willing to compromise safety and put scheduling over inspections, but that's just me.
 
User avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 1299
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:30 am

WNbob wrote:
Tell u what, my next flight with these 737s, I will be sitting in FRONT of the engines.


And then the rudder kills you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427

Or the thrust reverser:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_W ... Flight_314

Or the ADI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Airlines_Flight_201

Or the whole flippin´roof comes off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Never mind pilot error, hi-jacking, bird strikes or missiles MH17 style.

I guess you see my point.
Your choice of a seat has very little to do with when you will pass the Pearly Gates.
In fact, they say the safest seats are in the rear!
Statistically, this same thing happening anytime soon is extremely unlikely anyway!

No Tax On Rotax
For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:04 am

alasizon wrote:
litz wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
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?


I never heard either a Mayday or an Emergency declared, but it was obvious listening to the recording that the instant the pilot reported fire, single engine, and descending (note didn't ask for permission, stated they already WERE descending) the controller inferred the emergency situation and treated it as such.

Sometimes the pilots don't actually have time to shout out Mayday.


If you start descending uncommanded and advise ATC you are doing it due to a critical incident on-board, every controller is going to consider you an emergency and by the time they were around FL250, they were already squawking 7700. From experience, I can tell you that the uncommanded descent will always draw interest from the controller and once you explain, rarely will there be any uncertainty about whether or not you are an emergency.


Ok, the pilots concentrated in flying the aircraft and didn't declare an emergency. They effectively declared an emergency by squawking 7700.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:51 am

Passedv1 wrote:
hivue wrote:
747megatop wrote:
If the same emergency had happened on some of the remotest flight paths over water (JNB-SYD/SCL-SYD or for that matter a TPAC fligth path like LAX-SYD); how would this scenario play out?


I think this is a valid point. There apparently were 2 failures in this event: (1) a fan blade failed (separated due to metal fatigue or whatever), and (2) a window failed (due probably to it or the fuselage area nearby being struck by debris from the failed engine). Do all of the stringent ETOPS rules and regulations take into account multiple simultaneous failures (aside from multiple simultaneous engine failures)?


This event would have been covered in the ETOPS scenarios. One engine at 10,000’ at the critical point is covered. Surprisingly, a simple depressurization at 10,000’ is usually more limiting than the depressurization with an engine failure.


Maybe the aircraft is more efficient on one engine ? Despite the drag and asymmetry.

In this case though I wouldn't want to be in that 737 at the critical point over an ocean, because that exploded engine is certainly more draggy, and the various holes in the wing and of course missing window don't help.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2325
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:04 am

Tn55337 wrote:
would it make sense to try and design cowlings to shatter into thousands of little pieces with very little mass to do damage with?


Would you want the cowling to shatter into thousands of little pieces during a bird strike?
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
jplatts
Posts: 2653
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:15 pm

This kind of tragedy could have happened on American, Delta, United, Alaska, or Sun Country, as all 5 of these carriers operate Boeing 737NG airplanes with CFM56 engines. Appropriate inspections should be performed on the CFM56 engines on the Boeing 737NG planes in the fleets of AA, DL, UA, AS, and SY in addition to the 737NGs still in the WN fleet in order to prevent this kind of tragedy happening again.

While Allegiant and Frontier do not have any Boeing 737NG planes in their fleets, both of these carriers do operate Airbus A319ceo and Airbus A320ceo planes with CFM56 engines, and Frontier also has Airbus A321ceo planes with CFM56 engines. American, Delta, and Alaska also operate A319ceo and A320ceo planes with CFM56 engines. The same kind of engine failure that happened on WN 1380 could happen on A319ceo/A320ceo/A321ceo planes that are equipped with CFM56 engines and that are operated by AA, DL, AS, G4, or F9. Appropriate inspections should also be undertaken on A319ceo/A320ceo/A321ceo planes in the AA, DL, AS, G4, and F9 fleets if necessary to prevent a tragedy similar to WN 1380 from happening on AA, DL, AS, G4, or F9.
 
bob75013
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:05 pm

Aesma wrote:


In this case though I wouldn't want to be in that 737 at the critical point over an ocean, because that exploded engine is certainly more draggy, and the various holes in the wing and of course missing window don't help.


Why llmit it to 737s? What about A 320s, A330s, a350s, 757s, 767s, 787s?
 
bob75013
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:14 pm

In a side note WN has announced a plan to issue every flight 1380 passenger a check for $5000 and a $1000 travel vouncher.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:22 pm

bob75013 wrote:
In a side note WN has announced a plan to issue every flight 1380 passenger a check for $5000 and a $1000 travel vouncher.
As long as they are not signing away and rights in accepting this, good on WN.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:50 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
CLEDAYBUCK,

What are you a lawyer? What can the pax sue for other than transportation to their destination?

GF


They can sue for a multitude of things. PTSD being one of them. There was an article out earlier today on the potential lawsuits for this event.


Here’s the link
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/04/19/486819.htm
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3361
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:51 pm

CLEDAYBUCK,

What are you a lawyer? What can the pax sue for other than transportation to their destination?

GF
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2721
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:52 pm

For the people wondering why the Airlines resisted the inspection schedule that the FAA was proposing, its simple... The FAA had no idea what it was asking. The FAA thought that it would be a small section of the 737s (<70 at WN IIRC), but because the airline doesn't track the blades individually it was over 600 engines that needed testing. The same at UA with the FAA being off by a huge factor.

Most people get upset when they are required to spend massive amounts of money and effort while the government is at the same time telling them to do it right now because its a trivial task.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3361
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:54 pm

The A320 cowl is different than the B737, so unlikely to have the same failure and damage to the cowl.. As to ETOPS legs, there are diversions accounted for at the most critical point(s), so a despressurized, OEI diversion can be made. A frangible cowl is impossible, how would it be anti-iced with hot air?

GF
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:08 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
In this case though I wouldn't want to be in that 737 at the critical point over an ocean, because that exploded engine is certainly more draggy, and the various holes in the wing and of course missing window don't help.


Why llmit it to 737s? What about A 320s, A330s, a350s, 757s, 767s, 787s?


Yes and even 3 and 4 holers, I said "that 737" meaning damaged like that one has been, which isn't exactly common.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2990
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:21 pm

res whose hands on the controls: The maritime tradition has the captain or officer of the deck do nothing but observe and command. Said officer is expected to have complete situation awareness, and make all decisions on any changes. Further the OD is expected to call the Commanding Officer to the deck under any emergency or ambiguity.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
mcdu
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:15 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
res whose hands on the controls: The maritime tradition has the captain or officer of the deck do nothing but observe and command. Said officer is expected to have complete situation awareness, and make all decisions on any changes. Further the OD is expected to call the Commanding Officer to the deck under any emergency or ambiguity.


What are you talking about? This is not how a cockpit crew operates. The PF and PNF along with Capt and FO have roles defined by the operator. Traditionally the PNF does checklist and radio. The PF flies the plane. In the event the emergency happens with the FO as PF they will continue to fly until the Capt either takes the controls or let’s them
Fly to the conclusion. It’s often better to allow the PF to continue to the landing if they have been flying since the beginning of the emergency. They have a feel for how the plane is responding to the situation and elminates a “learning curve” with a transition of controls.

A plane doing 250kts vs a ship at 8kts requires quick response and critical thinking.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 6517
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:16 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
In a side note WN has announced a plan to issue every flight 1380 passenger a check for $5000 and a $1000 travel vouncher.
As long as they are not signing away and rights in accepting this, good on WN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/20/us/s ... index.html

Here is a link.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:20 pm

Not taking away from any deserved accolades to the Captain in this incident regarding performance, etc. but it doesn't seem many accolades are coming the F.O.'s way, which IMO there should be. Engine failure, followed by pressurization failure, damage to the aircraft and left wing, injuries on board...imagine for one second handling all of this with just one pilot in the cockpit.

There were two pilots in that cockpit, and each were equally instrumental in this great and positive outcome. Just saying, would like to see more accolades coming to the F.O. as well (and that includes when the media does interviews it would seem appropriate that the F.O. should be there as well).

Captain Sully Sullenberger personally made sure that there were accolades coming F.O. Jeff Skile's way as well regarding the USAir 1549 Hudson River ditching incident...he, in graciousness and one of the best airline Captains around, fully understood in what they were faced with that it was ultimately the result of two great pilots performance working together resulting in that great outcome. It's a team. Just my opinion.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:37 pm

bob75013 wrote:
In a side note WN has announced a plan to issue every flight 1380 passenger a check for $5000 and a $1000 travel vouncher.

That sadly won't bring back the dead passenger. I guess the family is going to sue the airline, Boeing & the engine manufacturer? What are the other regulations governing compensation etc. in such scenarios involving injury/death?
 
commpilot
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:21 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:47 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
In a side note WN has announced a plan to issue every flight 1380 passenger a check for $5000 and a $1000 travel vouncher.
As long as they are not signing away and rights in accepting this, good on WN.


The $5,000 is just an upfront payment to help with any initial immediate needs of which is just given to they with no strings attached. There is no admission to guilt or waiving of rights by anyone. It is not linked to or removed from any further legal action that may take place. As for the travel voucher, that would just be a "we're sorry gift" that airlines give out for PR.


For the people who want to know why the pilots weren't screaming Mayday or declaring the emergency right away. If you listen to the center frequency audio it would appear pilots and/or the controller kept stepping on each other. Also if the airplane is indicating an engine fire and loss of pressure the pilots don't give a you know what about waiting for their time to call it in. Squawk 7700 like they should so the controllers get the alarm on their end then the only next steps for the pilots is to: Aviate Navigate Communicate.

Arm chair Pilots, CEOs and Lawyer need to learn to walk away from head scratching during times like these.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:16 pm

747megatop wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
In a side note WN has announced a plan to issue every flight 1380 passenger a check for $5000 and a $1000 travel vouncher.

That sadly won't bring back the dead passenger. I guess the family is going to sue the airline, Boeing & the engine manufacturer? What are the other regulations governing compensation etc. in such scenarios involving injury/death?


The check and voucher is probably not for the fatality's compensation. I imagine there will be a settlement of some sort with someone, although it would have to be figured out between Southwest, Boeing and/or CFMI. Hopefully they can all reach a settlement without needing to go to court.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:20 pm

In today's "sue-first" American culture, I'll be surprised if you don't see several people from that flight sue just because they can.
 
bob75013
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:45 pm

smokeybandit wrote:
In today's "sue-first" American culture, I'll be surprised if you don't see several people from that flight sue just because they can.




I expect you are right, but insurance will pay the claims, not Boeing, CFM or Southwest.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14170
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:48 pm

smokeybandit wrote:
In today's "sue-first" American culture, I'll be surprised if you don't see several people from that flight sue just because they can.

Yes, I am quite sure there will be lawsuits for psychological problems from such a traumatic event and for some, like those close to the woman who was killed, it would be understandable to seek compensation for that loss and damages. Some may end up with related health issues from the trauma, maybe lose time from work, if fly as part of their job it may limit their continued employment. I do wish in those cases that we had laws to limit compensation of attorneys. The initial payment by WN is likely to try and buy some tempering of potential lawsuits and acknowledge the immediate/short term affects from this traumatic event.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3361
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:00 pm

Good God, sue, as a surviving passenger, for PTSD? Really. Before you jump, I’ve survived a mid-air, a dozen engine shutdowns, lost many friends in accidents, so I know where I’m at here. The deceased family certainly is owed compensation as are any injured. But, trying to show a profit for a 25 minute flight is a bit much.

I always like Cactus 1549 passengers who tried to make it back LGA for the last flight to their destinations.

GF
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7761
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:02 pm

Regarding the renewed discussion of who was flying and why (which was covered earlier):

First, the CA is the CA, and she can divvy up the cockpit responsibilities as she sees fit in an emergency.

Second, many airlines, including AA, recommend that in the initial phases of an emergency, the CA have the FO fly, while the CA makes decisions, communicates with ATC, Company, Crew, etc., and plans next steps. However, depending on the situation, see #1 above. (In the Air France accident, for example, there was a point at which that CA probably should have gotten on the controls since the aircraft wasn't behaving as expected. Had he done so, and cutoff the guy in the right seat's sidestick, most likely no accident. In the United 747 incident on takeoff at SFO, same thing; had that CA got on the controls earlier, he would have realized that the FO was doing it all wrong and creating most of their problems; had he not eventually taken control, the aircraft would certainly have crashed. Sullenberger, in an obviously-critical dual-engine-out situation, immediately took the controls and put the FO on attempting to restart the engines while he, as CA, flew and communicated directly with ATC. )

Third, what actually happened in this incident was that the FO was flying the leg when the incident occurred. Probably because he seemed comfortable on the controls, and the aircraft was doing what she expected with him flying, she left him on the controls and proceeded to manage the incident. She took control on final approach to execute the high-speed, single-engine landing, where her presumably-superior flying skills might be necessary. And she greased it, apparently.

That seems like very-effective CRM.

Had the airplane been super-squirrely, or if the FO wasn't getting it done, it's her command, and she likely would have adjusted the responsibilities and taken the controls. Not for nuthin', but she had been an instructor-pilot (as a lot of pilots have been at one point in their career), so likely had developed a pretty-good understanding of and comfort with monitoring another pilot in challenging situations. Maybe that helped or affected her decisions on this; maybe it didn't.

And, as a last thought: Yes, the FO is "perfectly capable" of flying the aircraft in the course of an emergency. That doesn't mean that FO is going to do it correctly/sufficiently when things start going bad. What we do know is that there are plenty of instances in the annals of emergencies where the FO doesn't get things right, including a couple I mention above. There are also many captains who have screwed up the flying during emergencies, with the rest of the crew either screaming at them or sitting there silently -- a big impetus for CRM. The bottom line is that you don't know how people are going to act in a full-bore emergency until it happens, and it is the responsibility of the whole crew, with the CA as final authority, to best allocate tasks based on how people are responding, and to reallocate if necessary.
Last edited by wjcandee on Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ubeema
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

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

Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:11 pm

cat3appr50 wrote:
Not taking away from any deserved accolades to the Captain in this incident regarding performance, etc. but it doesn't seem many accolades are coming the F.O.'s way, which IMO there should be. Engine failure, followed by pressurization failure, damage to the aircraft and left wing, injuries on board...imagine for one second handling all of this with just one pilot in the cockpit.

There were two pilots in that cockpit, and each were equally instrumental in this great and positive outcome. Just saying, would like to see more accolades coming to the F.O. as well (and that includes when the media does interviews it would seem appropriate that the F.O. should be there as well).

Captain Sully Sullenberger personally made sure that there were accolades coming F.O. Jeff Skile's way as well regarding the USAir 1549 Hudson River ditching incident...he, in graciousness and one of the best airline Captains around, fully understood in what they were faced with that it was ultimately the result of two great pilots performance working together resulting in that great outcome. It's a team. Just my opinion.

Like too many others have done before you, If you disagree with the media coverage regarding both pilots you should take it to them directly not on this thread.
What’s important Southwest released a statement from both pilots 2 days ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/southwestair ... 51232?s=21

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