Originally posted by 3WE
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Southwest Airlines Engine Failure, Passenger Near Sucked Out of the Aircraft
Collapse
X
-
-
Interesting interview:
As it turns out, Darren Ellisor, the FO, was pilot-flying, at the time of the incident and was the one who handled the initial upset recovery and descent. Tammie Jo Shults handled coms, worked the problem and took over for the landing.
It's still hard to get the sequence of events straight. At one point he suggests that the loud bang (engine failure) and decompression happen at the same time, but then she suggests that she is first perplexed by the engine failure and that the decompression came a bit later.
One clue is that she does speak in a normal voice with little ambient background noise when giving the initial call to ATC (engine fire, descending), but says on the interview that there was so much ambient noise in the cockpit that they had to communicate with hand signals. I assume that noise was the result of the decompression and thus it had not yet occurred when she made that transmission. Or is that all due to the oxygen mask?
My guess is that there was a delay between the events and that the initial "descending" call was due to the aircraft being unable to hold altitude with one engine inop but was not a deliberate descent at that point.
Hopefully we will see an detailed NTSB report sometime soon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostMy guess is that there was a delay between the events and that the initial "descending" call was due to the aircraft being unable to hold altitude with one engine inop but was not a deliberate descent at that point.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Post 62 in page 4:
Originally posted by GabrielOriginally posted by EvanYes, I imagine the descent rate was constrained due to the structural issue, but what is entirely unclear to me in that 9 min atc tape is when the decompression event actually occurs. The mention of a 'hole and somebody went out' is pretty far into it. Up to that point, I don't see how atc would have been aware of the need for a rapid descent. But, again, she is given initial clearance down to 11,000 (why 11,000 if the common decompression procedure is for a spin down to 10,000?)
0:34 to 0:52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnSizWZVyD4
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
On the topic of contained vs uncontained failure... here is a quote from avherald:
Found this quote, wanna share:
NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt described the incident as “an apparent in-flight engine failure,” but declined to use the term uncontained engine failure. “I don’t want to sound bureaucratic, but ‘uncontained engine failure’ connotates a very specific thing,” Sumwalt said. “The engine is designed not to have an uncontained engine failure. There are protection rings around the engine to keep shrapnel from coming out. Even though we believe that there were parts coming out of this engine, it may not have been in that section of the engine that technically would qualify this as an uncontained engine failure.”
On May 3rd 2018 the NTSB released an investigation update reporting that parts of the engine inlet and cowling struck the wing and the fuselage causing a "rapid depressurization of the cabin after the loss of one of the passenger windows". The NTSB wrote: "Initial examination of the airplane revealed that the majority of the inlet cowl was missing, including the entire outer barrel, the aft bulkhead, and the inner barrel forward of the containment ring. The inlet cowl containment ring was intact but exhibited numerous impact witness marks. Examination of the fan case revealed no through-hole fragment exit penetrations; however, it did exhibit a breach hole that corresponded to one of the fan blade impact marks and fan case tearing." Two pieces of fan blade #13, that had separated, were recovered in addition to the dovetail that had remained at the fan disk. Laboratory examination revealed 6 cracks had developed originating from different points at the convex side. None of the other fan blades showed any crack. All fan blades had accumulated more than 32,000 engine cycles since new, maintenace records show the blades were lubricated as required. In addition, the fan blades had been overhauled 10,712 engine cycles before the accident in November 2012. Since that overhaul the dovetails were visually inspected six times during fan blade lubrication. With respect to the passenger partially pulled out of the cracked window the NTSB wrote: "Three flight attendants were assigned to the flight, and an additional SWA employee was in a jumpseat in the cabin. During interviews, the flight attendants and the employee reported that they heard a loud sound and experienced vibration. The oxygen masks automatically deployed in the cabin. The flight attendants retrieved portable oxygen bottles and began moving through the cabin to calm passengers and assist them with their masks. As they moved toward the mid-cabin, they found the passenger in row 14 partially out of the window and attempted to pull her into the cabin. Two male passengers helped and were able to bring the passenger in." The NTSB stated: "A large gouge impact mark, consistent in shape to a recovered portion of fan cowl and latching mechanism, was adjacent to the row 14 window (see figure 4; the window was entirely missing. No window, airplane structure, or engine material was found inside the cabin." (See photo below)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostPost 62 in page 4:
However, at 2:41, immediately after being cleared to 11,000, SW1380 is asked specifically what the situation was ("you're single engine and... what else?") , Tammie Jo Shults replies, "we're single engine, that's it".
It's hard to imagine her not reporting something as significant to ATC as decompression at that point, when asked so specifically,.. unless it hadn't happened yet.
Confusing...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI hear something there. Hard to say what...
However, at 2:41, immediately after being cleared to 11,000, SW1380 is asked specifically what the situation was ("you're single engine and... what else?") , Tammie Jo Shults replies, "we're single engine, that's it".
It's hard to imagine her not reporting something as significant to ATC as decompression at that point, when asked so specifically,.. unless it hadn't happened yet.
Confusing...
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Posthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzCtI2DK7_s
Yes, hard to imagine, confusing, but I bet you a diet coke that the airplane was already depressurized at the time of the first "descending" call, let alone 2 minutes later.
So then why is a pilot at 32,000, dealing with the larger emergency of rapid decompression and in need of a rapid descent (albiet a reduced speed version) replying "we're single-engine, that's it"?
I'm not going to put a diet coke on the line for this, but it is puzzling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWell, if what we are hearing there is the intermittent cockpit warning--and the avionics haven't been modified in some way--afaik that can only be one of two things: cabin altitude or ground configuration, and I'll bet you a Club Mate that it's not ground configuration...
So then why is a pilot at 32,000, dealing with the larger emergency of rapid decompression and in need of a rapid descent (albiet a reduced speed version) replying "we're single-engine, that's it"?
I'm not going to put a diet coke on the line for this, but it is puzzling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostNot really sure what all the bantering is about? They had an emergency, they handled it and did their job, unfortunately there was loss of life. But certainly nothing the crew could have done to prevent it.
The bantering (on my part) is about:
- ascertaining the actual sequence of this thing,
- wondering what--if any--vital CRM and procedures may have been overlooked,
- recognizing the real-world limitations of CRM and procedure in high-stress, high-workload scenarios.
I know the mentality BoeingBobby: 'any landing you walk away from', and it's hard to argue with successful outcomes, but it's not without a purpose. Investigating these things is very important for reasons that seem to often elude pilots.
These events show the actual effectiveness and practicality of procedures under real-world stressful circumstances. They also often expose weaknesses in recurrent training for abnormal operations and hopefully catch those weaknesses before they lead to less successful outcomes.
But just ignore me; the NTSB will most likely be asking the same questions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAgreed. That much is clear. They both showed uncommon nerve, sound instincts and veteran skills under pressure. They deserve all the praise they have gotten for that. I'm sure there is nothing more they could have done to save that life.
The bantering (on my part) is about:
- ascertaining the actual sequence of this thing,
- wondering what--if any--vital CRM and procedures may have been overlooked,
- recognizing the real-world limitations of CRM and procedure in high-stress, high-workload scenarios.
I know the mentality BoeingBobby: 'any landing you walk away from', and it's hard to argue with successful outcomes, but it's not without a purpose. Investigating these things is very important for reasons that seem to often elude pilots.
These events show the actual effectiveness and practicality of procedures under real-world stressful circumstances. They also often expose weaknesses in recurrent training for abnormal operations and hopefully catch those weaknesses before they lead to less successful outcomes.
But just ignore me; the NTSB will most likely be asking the same questions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostIf anything, I am pretty sure that the CRM here was nothing but top notch. Who cares what came first, the chicken or the egg! I am willing to bet, the first thing was the engine coming apart. Followed by an almost immediate decompression from the thrown fan blade striking the window. Again, this is what they were trained for. We do this in the sim 2 times a year. Have they practiced a catastrophic engine failure followed by a decompression? Who knows? But I am willing to bet it will be done from time to time now!
Comment
Comment