Sometimes I think that all passengers should be compelled to receive a basic education in aviation before being allowed on planes. I also believe all prospective drivers should receive a lesson in how cars work.

Don't want to give this idiot any credit. But the being stuck on the plane for 8 hours combined with last week's situation makes me wonder. Maybe United barring a dire emergency should consider someplace other than Goose Bay to divert to. Nothing wrong with Goose Bay, appears to be a nice airport but United doesn't have a presence their or apparently any plan on what to do if one of their aircraft lands there.

slcguy wrote:

Don't want to give this idiot any credit. But the being stuck on the plane for 8 hours combined with last week's situation makes me wonder. Maybe United barring a dire emergency should consider someplace other than Goose Bay to divert to. Nothing wrong with Goose Bay, appears to be a nice airport but United doesn't have a presence their or apparently any plan on what to do if one of their aircraft lands there.

Where would you like them to stop in the event of a structural emergency? Not too many options on the North American side of the Atlantic especially when the name of the game is to land the aircraft a quickly as possible.
If your car’s engine temp gauge spikes, you don’t pull over at the nearest gas station... you pull over immediately to the nearest safe location on the roadside. The convenience of your passengers be damned. Unless they offer to pay for a new engine.

I’m not sure if the windscreen giving out would have caused the pilots to be sucked out but very well could have incapacitated them or at the minimum made it very difficult to perform their duties. I’d rather be inconveniced in Goose Bay for a few hours than inconvenice the mortician at the morgue...

I was just having a conversation with a friend last night and was saying that airlines are one group of companies constantly faced with “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations, which is often not taken into account by people when things don’t go as planned. In this case, damned if you get the aircraft down at the closest usable airport which may present an inconvenience to customers, damned if you don’t and there is a crash wherein the airline would be sued for gross negligence among other things. If there was a crash, hell in a handbag...

77H

Is this guy for real!? Words absolutely fail me sometimes.

That person should sue the Canadian gov't for allowing birds to be in the area

Maybe it's time for the airlines to make the passengers sign an indemnity form and if the pax don't like it, they can go by road or sea.

Balerit wrote:

Maybe it's time for the airlines to make the passengers sign an indemnity form and if the pax don't like it, they can go by road or sea.

yes and airlines can close and sell their planes to the coca cola company for cans production

If the window developed a hole and broke out you can be sucked out.

It happened on a BA flight 5390 and a Sichuan also.

Other crew members held on to them.

Boof02671 wrote:

If the window developed a hole and broke out you can be sucked out.

It happened on a BA flight 5390 and a Sichuan also.

Other crew members held on to them.

BA5390 was due to improperly sized screws being used to hold the windshield in place. It was NOT caused by a hole in the windshield like you are implying. Stop spreading misinformation.

I am an aircraft mechanic. If a hole develops and breeches it will cause depressurization and you will be sucked out.

When the window shatters you put the plane down asap to prevent it from breeching.

I’m not spreading misinformation, I didn’t state it was the same cause, I’ve replaced many cockpit widows.

They due fail especially when there is a malfunction in the window heat causing an arch.

I’ll expect your apology.

Does this guy have the money to fight UA?

Boof02671 wrote:

I am an aircraft mechanic. If a hole develops and breeches it will cause depressurization and you will be sucked out.

When the window shatters you put the plane down asap to prevent it from breeching.

I’m not spreading misinformation, I didn’t state it was the same cause, I’ve replaced many cockpit widows.

They due fail especially when there is a malfunction in the window heat causing an arch.

I’ll expect your apology.

He doesn't have to apologize.

Your post was very misleading and insinuated that the pilot on BA5390 who was sucked out of the plane was due to the window/windshield breaking. In BA5390, the windshield blew out as one piece after incorrect screws were used.

BAeRJ100 is expecting your apologies.

You are putting words into my post. Just stop.

I implied nothing.

I stated a pilot can and has been partially sucked out.

And he or she can fight their own battles.

You are simply interpreting it to fit your narrative

Grow up and just simply discuss and debate.

And apparently you didn’t look up the other flight.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna874326

Cockpit window shatters and pilot partially sucked out.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/0 ... sh-pkg.cnn

I rest my case.

BAeRJ100 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

If the window developed a hole and broke out you can be sucked out.
It happened on a BA flight 5390 and a Sichuan also.
Other crew members held on to them.

BA5390 was due to improperly sized screws being used to hold the windshield in place. It was NOT caused by a hole in the windshield like you are implying. Stop spreading misinformation.

I think you (BAeRJ100) are being unnecessarily harsh.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the different reason behind the windscreen failure on BA5390.
But it is not the mechanism that causes the window to fail that is the main issue here.

Firstly, some people (yes, even on a.net) probably still doubt that you can be sucked through an aircraft window, even though this happened not only on Sichuan Airlines flight 3U8633, but also to a SouthWest passenger barely a month before that (April & May, 2018)
WN1380 - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1391827&hilit=1380

Secondly, the thread is probably just as much about this UA passenger (and his lawyers) launching a claim for damages for the "fear it caused".

I confess the OP didn't make it clear exactly what issues were uppermost in their mind, but nitpicking over BA5390 probably wasn't their first concern.
WayexTDI please also take note...

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

BAeRJ100 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

If the window developed a hole and broke out you can be sucked out.
It happened on a BA flight 5390 and a Sichuan also.
Other crew members held on to them.

BA5390 was due to improperly sized screws being used to hold the windshield in place. It was NOT caused by a hole in the windshield like you are implying. Stop spreading misinformation.

I think you (BAeRJ100) are being unnecessarily harsh.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the different reason behind the windscreen failure on BA5390.
But it is not the mechanism that causes the window to fail that is the main issue here.

Firstly, some people (yes, even on a.net) probably still doubt that you can be sucked through an aircraft window, even though this happened not only on Sichuan Airlines flight 3U8633, but also to a SouthWest passenger barely a month before that (April & May, 2018)
WN1380 - https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... hilit=1380

Secondly, the thread is probably just as much about this UA passenger (and his lawyers) launching a claim for damages for the "fear it caused".

I confess the OP didn't make it clear exactly what issues were uppermost in their mind, but nitpicking over BA5390 probably wasn't their first concern.
WayexTDI please also take note...

Thank you. You obviously understood why intent to point out you can be sucked out if it breeches.

Boof02671 wrote:

I am an aircraft mechanic. If a hole develops and breeches it will cause depressurization and you will be sucked out.

Blown out, not sucked out. Physics 101

When the window shatters you put the plane down asap to prevent it from breeching.

It's extremely rare for a laminate window used on an aircraft to shatter and disintegrate completely. Most 'shattered' and 'cracked' windows you see are the outer layer only.
The SOP at most airlines is to get the aircraft below 10k. Landing is a separate discussion.

I’m not spreading misinformation, I didn’t state it was the same cause, I’ve replaced many cockpit widows.

With regards to BA 5390 you were talking nonsense. There was no hole in the windshield, the windshield panel departed the aircraft due to incorrect fitting (wrong screws used).

I’ll expect your apology.

As do those who you've attempted to skygod.

Boof02671 wrote:

You are putting words into my post. Just stop.

I implied nothing.

I stated a pilot can and has been partially sucked out.

And he or she can fight their own battles.

You are simply interpreting it to fit your narrative

Grow up and just simply discuss and debate.

The pilot also wasn’t wearing his seat belt in that incident either at the time iirc. At least not in the tv show made about it!

Only in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Seriously, in mainland China, a windscreen was actually totally fell out, co-pilot sucked half-way out of the plane, and they were flying in some mountainous region while depressurized. Co-pilot and a cabin crew was actually injured. Lawsuits? What lawsuit?
In US of A, where a windscreen shattered (which happens from time to time), but only the outermost layer, and plane was not even depressurized (although they landed the plane out of precaution). No injury, not even all that "scary". Yep, let's sue for emotional stress.

P.S. For both BA5390 and the Sichuan Airlines flight, the whole windscreen depart, it didn't "shatter". Oh, and in both case, the pilots survived (Although the BA5390 case is definitely a miracle).

anshabhi wrote:

Does this guy have the money to fight UA?

Doesn't matter. His lawyer will get paid once UA settle (since this won't most likely go to court).
That's the way the system works.

I wonder how many people have actually read the article. It's a rather notable lawsuit for the fact that the person in question claims to have a flown a million miles on United, so it's not exactly a random passenger that sees the inside of the plane for a first time that's suing. While I won't equate miles to IQ, I can't help but think that there might be a bit more substance to this case than others on this forum are suspecting.

Ferminios wrote:

I wonder how many people have actually read the article. It's a rather notable lawsuit for the fact that the person in question claims to have a flown a million miles on United, so it's not exactly a random passenger that sees the inside of the plane for a first time that's suing. While I won't equate miles to IQ, I can't help but think that there might be a bit more substance to this case than others on this forum are suspecting.

Please explain how.

Fear and emotions are not something that can be 100% proven medically; unlike physical injury, it's easy to fake.
As such, UA will settle this out of court to avoid being dragged in public and further damaging its image. And this will lead to more frivolous lawsuits.

While it is possible to be forced out through any opening that developes in a pressurized aircraft, it's very uncommon for this to happen in a windshield of a commercial aircraft.

I am also an aircraft mechanic and like most of us (mechanics), I have seen damaged windshields, but never one with a hole in it. I think if someone ran the numbers of windshields replaced due to failure/damage to windshields that actually had a hole in them, the latter would be a very small number.

The outer layer of glass in a windshield is fairly thin compared to the rest of it. In total, the windshield is over an inch think, comprising of glass and acrylic layers. The windshield weighs somewhere around 30 to 40 pounds. The glass is hard and brittle (which resists erosion), while the acrylic is very tough (giving overall strength). The glass layer is also heated and this is one of the most common things to fail, the heating element itself.

Another thing to remember is the pilot flying the airplane would most likely have no idea how close the windshield actually came to failing. This could only be found out by removing the windshield and inspecting it then.

One common complaint on this site is the pilots not providing enough information in the case of a diversion or delay. This is exactly why they need to watch what they say. People are sensitive and sue crazy.

anshabhi wrote:

Does this guy have the money to fight UA?

I’m sure his lawyer took the case on contingency - and will get 30-50% of any settlement instead of an hourly fee. While it would be fun to see UA call his bluff and go to court, UA will probably take the path of least resistance and settle. Especially since the plaintiff (and his lawyer) would most likely settle for a tiny amount of money with no effort instead of putting money and time into a court case and ending up with nothing. Or less than nothing if a judge ordered them to pay UA’s costs for defending a frivolous lawsuit.

Because he flew a million miles and refused the $500 voucher he gets to sue? What about the other passengers did they not suffer the same "near death experience" and "be paralysed with fear to ever fly again and put one''s career in jeopardy?"...I guess some people can use their influence stronger than others. A million miles makes all the difference I guess.

poor little sensitive rich boy .. 1Million miles and never had a flight problem? he should look at it as they landed and all were safe. Ok they were in an airport that didn't have a exec lounge to pamper his ego, but they could have been in upstate NY and kept on an unheated plane for 24 hours.

Mods, please bear with me, I'm having difficulty hanging on to my …. sanity.

Despite criticism from certain sources that accuse me of being patronizing, it appears I still need to spell it out for y'all, in nice easy bite-sized paragraphs.

Post #4

77H wrote:

I’m not sure if the windscreen giving out would have caused the pilots to be sucked out...

Post #9

Boof02671 wrote:

If the window developed a hole and broke out you can be sucked out.
It happened on a BA flight 5390 and a Sichuan also.
Other crew members held on to them.

Question asked.... and answered.

Post #10

BAeRJ100 wrote:

BA5390 was due to improperly sized screws being used to hold the windshield in place. It was NOT caused by a hole in the windshield like you are implying.
Stop spreading misinformation.

What misinformation?
I suggest you go all the way back to Post #4 ; "I’m not sure if the windscreen giving out would have caused the pilots to be sucked out"
.Unless I am mistaken, we have just seen an answer for that question.
77H did NOT specify how the windscreen had to be displaced. He did NOT specify it must start with a small hole or merely crazed over. He was querying whether it was possible for a human being to be sucked out (yes, sucked, not blown) through a small aperture such as a missing windscreen.
Boof02671 was the first person to answer that question, drawing a parallel with BA5390, for that purpose alone.

I'm not guessing, because he clarified it all with the next post
Post #11

Boof02671 wrote:

I am an aircraft mechanic. If a hole develops and breeches it will cause depressurization and you will be sucked out.
I’m not spreading misinformation, I didn’t state it was the same cause,

Ok, so he mis-spelled "breaches", but he answered the question.

Despite that, others piled in to point out how wrong he was.

WayexTDI; "Your post was very misleading and insinuated that.. (blah, blah, blah)
ChrisKen; "With regards to BA 5390 you were talking nonsense."

After I chimed in at post #16, I too became the victim of insults (via a string of PMs)

It turns out not everybody could see the bigger picture.

So yes, you can be sucked out of an aircraft through a broken/failed window, regardless of how it comes about. However, in each of the three cases I know of, the entire body did not pass completely through the window. (one died, two survived)

And talking of bigger pictures; thx to the OP (Tugger) for coming back and pointing out this is all a side-issue, and that almost nobody bothered to read the original article, and understand that his point was about something else entirely.

I'm going off now for an appointment with a bucket of iced water.
If y'all very lucky, I might drown myself. Fingers crossed, eh?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Mods, please bear with me, I'm having difficulty hanging on to my …. sanity.

Despite criticism from certain sources that accuse me of being patronizing, it appears I still need to spell it out for y'all, in nice easy bite-sized paragraphs.

Post #4

77H wrote:

I’m not sure if the windscreen giving out would have caused the pilots to be sucked out...

Post #9

Boof02671 wrote:

If the window developed a hole and broke out you can be sucked out.
It happened on a BA flight 5390 and a Sichuan also.
Other crew members held on to them.

Question asked.... and answered.

Post #10

BAeRJ100 wrote:

BA5390 was due to improperly sized screws being used to hold the windshield in place. It was NOT caused by a hole in the windshield like you are implying.
Stop spreading misinformation.

What misinformation?
I suggest you go all the way back to Post #4 ; "I’m not sure if the windscreen giving out would have caused the pilots to be sucked out"
.Unless I am mistaken, we have just seen an answer for that question.
77H did NOT specify how the windscreen had to be displaced. He did NOT specify it must start with a small hole or merely crazed over. He was querying whether it was possible for a human being to be sucked out (yes, sucked, not blown) through a small aperture such as a missing windscreen.
Boof02671 was the first person to answer that question, drawing a parallel with BA5390, for that purpose alone.

I'm not guessing, because he clarified it all with the next post
Post #11

Boof02671 wrote:

I am an aircraft mechanic. If a hole develops and breeches it will cause depressurization and you will be sucked out.
I’m not spreading misinformation, I didn’t state it was the same cause,

Ok, so he mis-spelled "breaches", but he answered the question.

Despite that, others piled in to point out how wrong he was.

WayexTDI; "Your post was very misleading and insinuated that.. (blah, blah, blah)
ChrisKen; "With regards to BA 5390 you were talking nonsense."

After I chimed in at post #16, I too became the victim of insults (via a string of PMs)

It turns out not everybody could see the bigger picture.

So yes, you can be sucked out of an aircraft through a broken/failed window, regardless of how it comes about. However, in each of the three cases I know of, the entire body did not pass completely through the window. (one died, two survived)

And talking of bigger pictures; thx to the OP (Tugger) for coming back and pointing out this is all a side-issue, and that almost nobody bothered to read the original article, and understand that his point was about something else entirely.

I'm going off now for an appointment with a bucket of iced water.
If y'all very lucky, I might drown myself. Fingers crossed, eh?

See dude, you are being patronizing, faking to "explain" what the others did not understand just because you disagree with them.
Basically, we are wrong and you're right; gotcha!

Up until a few years ago, the B767 main nbr 1 windscreen was allowed to be dispatched with cracks in it. The wording in the MEL referred you to the AMM, which gave some inspection requirements, but basically if it was crazed or cracked, and the pilot could see through it OK, then you could dispatch it iaw the MEL for flights back to base.
I did this once. The Capt said as I walked into the flight deck, 'broken windscreen, we are staying the night'. 'Outer pane only', said I,'you are going home', and showed him the paperwork. Much surprised and off they went.

Also many years ago on the Tristar, the MEL allowed us to remove all the broken outer pane, and then dispatch the aircraft, even the wipers worked normally.
But with modern lawyers, the aircraft diverts into Goose Bay. Glad I have retired

I actually think the bigger issue is that Goose Bay has very limited resources to deal with a diverted aircraft that cannot immediately leave after minor repairs or taking on fuel. This has affected multiple airlines.

Might I suggest that perhaps the major airlines should cooperate and fund better contingency options for Goose Bay. This could be paying Canada to over-staff the airport with customs agents to the quick dispatch of "rescue" aircraft to keep people from sitting in Goose Bay (even if they are only delivered to a nearby major city and rerouted from there).

Have a great day,

Tugger wrote:

As to the risk of dying and getting sucked out... anyone remember this:

Do you remember that Tugg? I certainly do: a flight attendant got sucked out and died, unless you think she is not really dead because they didn't find her body. Truth is that anybody not buckled in their seat near the front cabin of Aloha 243 was in a very dire situation and could have suffered the same fate as Ms. Clarabelle Lansing. As for the rest of the plane, I won't use the word "miraculous" but I will say that they were extremely lucky to get that plane down on the ground safely in that condition; as it was, there were some serious injuries to those in the convertible section. Perhaps the fact that they were flying at a relatively low altitude helped.

I think it is very clear that losing a windshield over the Atlantic would be extremely dangerous and perhaps catastrophic. Whether or not this UA plane was in such a critical state is unclear but obviously the decision to land at YYR meant that it had at least elevated to a serious situation. I am also unsure that it was a bird strike, so I have to agree with the lawsuit on that point, unless somebody can say with certainty that an earlier bird strike could have caused the windshield to crack and fail halfway through a flight.

As others have alluded to, UA will probably be advised to simply settle this out of court. It's cheaper and they have too much to lose. We will probably never hear how much the plaintiff receives unless it is a court-ordered settlement.

If you are receiving harassing PMs, please just report them so we can take action. Thank you!

speedbird52 wrote:

Sometimes I think that all passengers should be compelled to receive a basic education in aviation before being allowed on planes. I also believe all prospective drivers should receive a lesson in how cars work.

I have an American Airlines route map from 1959. On the back it has all kinds of info about how airplanes fly, how jet and piston engines work, and how the plane is navigated. That probably helped out a lot of passengers back in the day.

Flightsimboy wrote:

.I guess some people can use their influence stronger than others. A million miles makes all the difference I guess.

If he didn't take the voucher he knew exactly what he was doing. He planned to sue from the very beginning. I would be curious to know his background when it comes to lawsuits. Crazy lawsuits are aren't just the territory of low income or uneducated people. There was case several years ago where a doctor sued Anheuser-Busch InBev for making him think US market Becks is brewed in Germany. Since it has been brewed in the USA the label says "Product of the USA", but he was worked up because it said "Germany Quality" on the label. The guy won a judgement against A-B and had a history of similar suits against other companies.

falstaff wrote:

If he didn't take the voucher he knew exactly what he was doing. He planned to sue from the very beginning. I would be curious to know his background when it comes to lawsuits. [...]

I know the answer is partly "because of frivolous lawsuits like this", but why does would the airline see the need to add the condition of dropping any and all legal action if you take the voucher? In a sense, you're inviting people like him to just sue for the sake of making a quick buck...

77H wrote:

slcguy wrote:

Don't want to give this idiot any credit. But the being stuck on the plane for 8 hours combined with last week's situation makes me wonder. Maybe United barring a dire emergency should consider someplace other than Goose Bay to divert to. Nothing wrong with Goose Bay, appears to be a nice airport but United doesn't have a presence their or apparently any plan on what to do if one of their aircraft lands there.

Where would you like them to stop in the event of a structural emergency? Not too many options on the North American side of the Atlantic especially when the name of the game is to land the aircraft a quickly as possible.
If your car’s engine temp gauge spikes, you don’t pull over at the nearest gas station... you pull over immediately to the nearest safe location on the roadside. The convenience of your passengers be damned. Unless they offer to pay for a new engine.

I’m not sure if the windscreen giving out would have caused the pilots to be sucked out but very well could have incapacitated them or at the minimum made it very difficult to perform their duties. I’d rather be inconveniced in Goose Bay for a few hours than inconvenice the mortician at the morgue...

I was just having a conversation with a friend last night and was saying that airlines are one group of companies constantly faced with “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations, which is often not taken into account by people when things don’t go as planned. In this case, damned if you get the aircraft down at the closest usable airport which may present an inconvenience to customers, damned if you don’t and there is a crash wherein the airline would be sued for gross negligence among other things. If there was a crash, hell in a handbag...

77H

all windshields are multiple layers so it's unlikely the windshield would have blown out. However? Since the safety procedure is to Land at the nearest Airport?
Then that's what you DO. The Closest guys to Goose Bay with the Parts are the guys to Go there to fix it. The Rescue airplane? Might come from Anywhere.
That there weren't amenities at Goose Bay? Unfortunate but of little consequence.

I am really failing to see the problem here. There was a failure of some sort, the window broke, by design the window handled the failure and the pilots executed a specified emergency procedure that saved the lives of all onboard...how is this grounds for a lawsuit? I mean, he is suing on the potential that something could have happened? Next he will sue because there is the possibility that the thousands of gallons of kerosene burning 15 feet away from his seat *could* cause burns...nothing to see here folks except for some San Fran exec who is money grubbing.

2175301 wrote:

I actually think the bigger issue is that Goose Bay has very limited resources to deal with a diverted aircraft that cannot immediately leave after minor repairs or taking on fuel. This has affected multiple airlines.

Might I suggest that perhaps the major airlines should cooperate and fund better contingency options for Goose Bay. This could be paying Canada to over-staff the airport with customs agents to the quick dispatch of "rescue" aircraft to keep people from sitting in Goose Bay (even if they are only delivered to a nearby major city and rerouted from there).

Have a great day,

For the few dozen flights that divert there per year I doubt it’s worth the expense

Tugger wrote:

richierich wrote:

Tugger wrote:

As to the risk of dying and getting sucked out... anyone remember this:

Do you remember that Tugg? I certainly do: a flight attendant got sucked out and died, unless you think she is not really dead because they didn't find her body. Truth is that anybody not buckled in their seat near the front cabin of Aloha 243 was in a very dire situation and could have suffered the same fate as Ms. Clarabelle Lansing. As for the rest of the plane, I won't use the word "miraculous" but I will say that they were extremely lucky to get that plane down on the ground safely in that condition; as it was, there were some serious injuries to those in the convertible section. Perhaps the fact that they were flying at a relatively low altitude helped.

I think it is very clear that losing a windshield over the Atlantic would be extremely dangerous and perhaps catastrophic. Whether or not this UA plane was in such a critical state is unclear but obviously the decision to land at YYR meant that it had at least elevated to a serious situation. I am also unsure that it was a bird strike, so I have to agree with the lawsuit on that point, unless somebody can say with certainty that an earlier bird strike could have caused the windshield to crack and fail halfway through a flight.

You are missing the point I was trying make. My apologies for not being clearer.

The point I was trying to make was that even a failure of that magnitude resulted in only one fatality, the FA and no passengers. Still a terrible tragedy and someone died horribly. But the entire top of the plane blew off and only someone not seated was lost. Also as to the fact of "losing a windshield"... that is an extremely rare occurrence to say the least. and even the times it has happened the people "sucked out" survived. And even with a catastrophic event occurring and exposing a cockpit to the outside environment forces, those planes have been successfully landed and the passengers safely returned to the ground.

And that was the case in this "event" as well.

Bad things happen, people have died on aircraft due to failures in flight. However to my knowledge no windshield cracking has ever resulted in a hole or a pilot being sucked out or all passenger lives being at risk. Cracking happens, and the aircraft are designed for such an event

The whole point of my starting this thread was to highlight the fearmongering that is done by some people. Quite frankly the press owes more to the public and the traveling public than blatant regurgitation with no inspection into facts, when for something like aircraft there is tons of data and information available.

Tugg

Unfortunately? That Aloha Accident was a clear case of Negligence. That was a Combi airplane and the Cargo Door was Mis-Rigged. Look at the symmetrical forward edge of he damage. That was no accident! That's where the cargo door cutout was. Had Aloha spent more time in taking care of the door and Latching system this might not have happened. I saw and flew on this airplane before the Accident and said nothing even Knowing it was jacked up!! Had I had the courage to blow the whistle I might have saved that woman's life even is I put her out of a Job. To this day I share the blame in this for keeping my mouth shut!!

strfyr51 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

richierich wrote:

Do you remember that Tugg? I certainly do: a flight attendant got sucked out and died, unless you think she is not really dead because they didn't find her body. Truth is that anybody not buckled in their seat near the front cabin of Aloha 243 was in a very dire situation and could have suffered the same fate as Ms. Clarabelle Lansing. As for the rest of the plane, I won't use the word "miraculous" but I will say that they were extremely lucky to get that plane down on the ground safely in that condition; as it was, there were some serious injuries to those in the convertible section. Perhaps the fact that they were flying at a relatively low altitude helped.

I think it is very clear that losing a windshield over the Atlantic would be extremely dangerous and perhaps catastrophic. Whether or not this UA plane was in such a critical state is unclear but obviously the decision to land at YYR meant that it had at least elevated to a serious situation. I am also unsure that it was a bird strike, so I have to agree with the lawsuit on that point, unless somebody can say with certainty that an earlier bird strike could have caused the windshield to crack and fail halfway through a flight.

You are missing the point I was trying make. My apologies for not being clearer.

The point I was trying to make was that even a failure of that magnitude resulted in only one fatality, the FA and no passengers. Still a terrible tragedy and someone died horribly. But the entire top of the plane blew off and only someone not seated was lost. Also as to the fact of "losing a windshield"... that is an extremely rare occurrence to say the least. and even the times it has happened the people "sucked out" survived. And even with a catastrophic event occurring and exposing a cockpit to the outside environment forces, those planes have been successfully landed and the passengers safely returned to the ground.

And that was the case in this "event" as well.

Bad things happen, people have died on aircraft due to failures in flight. However to my knowledge no windshield cracking has ever resulted in a hole or a pilot being sucked out or all passenger lives being at risk. Cracking happens, and the aircraft are designed for such an event

The whole point of my starting this thread was to highlight the fearmongering that is done by some people. Quite frankly the press owes more to the public and the traveling public than blatant regurgitation with no inspection into facts, when for something like aircraft there is tons of data and information available.

Tugg

Unfortunately? That Aloha Accident was a clear case of Negligence. That was a Combi airplane and the Cargo Door was Mis-Rigged. Look at the symmetrical forward edge of he damage. That was no accident! That's where the cargo door cutout was. Had Aloha spent more time in taking care of the door and Latching system this might not have happened. I saw and flew on this airplane before the Accident and said nothing even Knowing it was jacked up!! Had I had the courage to blow the whistle I might have saved that woman's life even is I put her out of a Job. To this day I share the blame in this for keeping my mouth shut!!

By "Combi" and "Cargo Door", you mean the big cargo door on the left hand side that would swing up to let pallets enter, as a pure freighter?

In pure honesty , what is with people on this site acting like middle school girls half the time ? Have some respect for yourselves AND others hahah . Goodness

Well, I don’t know UAL procedure, but here’s a case where a B767-300 continued after an electrical failure of the outer pane. Is it really an ASAP landing for this non-normal, as I’ve thought there would be some way of diverting for the hour or two to BOS, BGR, etc? Would a crew divert into Siberia for this?

http://www.37000feet.com/report/940613/B767-300-captains-windshield-outer-pane-shattered-in-cruise-at-FL340-and

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, I don’t know UAL procedure, but here’s a case where a B767-300 continued after an electrical failure of the outer pane. Is it really an ASAP landing for this non-normal, as I’ve thought there would be some way of diverting for the hour or two to BOS, BGR, etc? Would a crew divert into Siberia for this?

http://www.37000feet.com/report/940613/B767-300-captains-windshield-outer-pane-shattered-in-cruise-at-FL340-and

Did the window shatter? It was up to the Captain as to what he was going to do. It's not up for Debate!! You nor I have any status to debate it!! I can almost assure you the FAA Agrees with his actions. And I'm FAR more afraid of them than anybody Else especially with the possibility of losing MY (or His) License. If the proceedure is to Land at the nearest facility? Then? That's what you DO!! That is? Unless you're going to pay the fine or risk losing YOUR License to fly? So? Other than that?
You don't Have a say, though we do see your opinion. (wrong as it might be..)

It was not a 737C

I wish I was a Judge sometimes so I could fine and threaten with jail lawyers and plaintiffs that bring up these frivolous lawsuits.

In the case of rapid depressurization in the cockpit, wouldn't the pilot generally speaking be kept in their seat if they are wearing their seatbelts, especially the 5-point harness they wear in the cockpit? I think back to the miracle of that BA flights years ago, but also sadly the person who died on the Southwest flight last year. I don't know if either were wearing seatbelts at the time.


Either way, this doesn't seem to be a situation that warrants suing UA. I would say, UA, or any airline, should and could do better with their communication to the passengers. This seems to be a common theme time after time.

strfyr51 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, I don’t know UAL procedure, but here’s a case where a B767-300 continued after an electrical failure of the outer pane. Is it really an ASAP landing for this non-normal, as I’ve thought there would be some way of diverting for the hour or two to BOS, BGR, etc? Would a crew divert into Siberia for this?

http://www.37000feet.com/report/940613/B767-300-captains-windshield-outer-pane-shattered-in-cruise-at-FL340-and

Did the window shatter? It was up to the Captain as to what he was going to do. It's not up for Debate!! You nor I have any status to debate it!! I can almost assure you the FAA Agrees with his actions. And I'm FAR more afraid of them than anybody Else especially with the possibility of losing MY (or His) License. If the proceedure is to Land at the nearest facility? Then? That's what you DO!! That is? Unless you're going to pay the fine or risk losing YOUR License to fly? So? Other than that?
You don't Have a say, though we do see your opinion. (wrong as it might be..)

Chill out, I’m not saying he was wrong. If land ASAP is the procefure, and I don’t doubt it was, fine. No doubt the FAA agrees, as they probably don’t care UNLESS he continued in violation of the QRH or FCOM procedure. I’m pointing out, in the 10 jets I’ve flown as a pilot, there was usually, depending on the exact failure, a way to avoid an ASAP landing, maybe lower PSID, maybe restrict flight level, maybe land ASAP. I’ve had about windscreen failures on B727, C-5, and CL60, so I’m not unknowing, on the topic IN GENERAL. Yes, it’s his certificate, not yours or mine and, I’m NOT challenging HIS decision, just inquiring on B767 procedure.

Is the procedure to land ASAP?

GF