Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southwest Airlines Engine Failure, Passenger Near Sucked Out of the Aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    There is an old expression about a dead horse and something about beating it, but I just can't remember how it goes exactly.
    BB, reread my post above, as I edited it. It is too murky to tell at this point, but due to some cockpit-controller confusion I see a potential for a far less successful outcome here.

    Comment


    • Can you give an example of a situation where there is no potential for a far less successful outcome? AF447 could have slammed into a cruise ship and killed 1000 more people. At Tenerife a piece of debris from the colliding aircraft could have hit the idling engine of a third plane, causing it to explode and set the aircraft on fire.

      While it's important and often useful to analyze what was done right and what was done wrong in all incidents, expecting to eliminate negative outcomes completely is a fool's errand.
      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

      Eric Law

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
        That is incorrect. When the New York controller asks them to define their situation (very specifically: "you are single engine and... what else?"), it is 01:44 after the first distress call and they are descending through 24,600. They have already informed the controller that there is no engine fire and he has already acknowleged this. At no point does the crew report decompression or emergency expedited descent.

        So what's the danger in this? Prior to that, less than a minute after the first distress call, the previous controller advises them:


        It appears that they did not hear this transmission:



        This is followed by loud interference, and then they are handed off to the New York controller.

        I get the very strong impression that he was unaware of the need for an expedited (emergency) descent, since single-engine ops alone would not require that. He had no way to extrapolate loss of cabin pressure from the flight crew communications. Typically, the crew would declare emergency or mayday and report decompression by this time and would certainly report decompression when asked to fully describe their situation during the emergency descent. So, yes, I find that problematic, meaning it doesn't sync with our current understanding of what happened here.
        OK, my mistake on the timing. The first thing she tells them is that they have a fire and are descending. It wasn't a request, it was a statement, we are descending with a single engine fire. The controller asks a clarifying question and she confirms again, single engine, fire in #1 and repeats that they are descending -- it doesn't matter why. After that, they are cleared to descend, and it seems to me now that the controller has done what he needs to do, he asks to clarify their situation, presumably to hand off information to Philly to prepare them. At that point (descending through 25,000') after the clarifying question, she clarifies that they no longer have a fire and are single engine.

        He already knows they are descending, they have permission to descend, and so why is the detail about decompression required, or even important at that point?

        I get the very strong impression that he was unaware of the need for an expedited (emergency) descent, since single-engine ops alone would not require that. He had no way to extrapolate loss of cabin pressure from the flight crew communications. Typically, the crew would declare emergency or mayday and report decompression by this time and would certainly report decompression when asked to fully describe their situation during the emergency descent. So, yes, I find that problematic, meaning it doesn't sync with our current understanding of what happened here.
        Now I am confused. One of the first things she told them was they had an engine fire, and they were descending. It was definitive, and the controller could also see they were descending. She re-iterates that they were descending. I'm not sure why you would think the controller didn't realize it especially since he gave them a clear path to descend and confirmed the altitude with them. By the time he asked for their condition as per the full context of the conversation, it sure seems to me he would be wanting to know about the fire, because outside of controlled flight -- which they clearly had -- I would think that fire on an aircraft is the most urgent threat.

        For Boeing Bobby, what do you have against dead horses?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
          OK, my mistake on the timing. The first thing she tells them is that they have a fire and are descending. It wasn't a request, it was a statement, we are descending with a single engine fire. The controller asks a clarifying question and she confirms again, single engine, fire in #1 and repeats that they are descending -- it doesn't matter why. After that, they are cleared to descend, and it seems to me now that the controller has done what he needs to do, he asks to clarify their situation, presumably to hand off information to Philly to prepare them. At that point (descending through 25,000') after the clarifying question, she clarifies that they no longer have a fire and are single engine.

          He already knows they are descending, they have permission to descend, and so why is the detail about



          Now I am confused. One of the first things she told them was they had an engine fire, and they were descending. It was definitive, and the controller could also see they were descending. She re-iterates that they were descending. I'm not sure why you would think the controller didn't realize it especially since he gave them a clear path to descend and confirmed the altitude with them. By the time he asked for their condition as per the full context of the conversation, it sure seems to me he would be wanting to know about the fire, because outside of controlled flight -- which they clearly had -- I would think that fire on an aircraft is the most urgent threat.

          For Boeing Bobby, what do you have against dead horses?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
            BB, reread my post above, as I edited it. It is too murky to tell at this point, but due to some cockpit-controller confusion I see a potential for a far less successful outcome here.
            As Eric said below you, it all worked out, they did a great job. The job that they are paid quite well to do. Potential? If you potentially had bought Microsoft, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, to name a few when they were cheap.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan citation
              ZNY10: Southwest 1380, you have traffic just below you.
              If there was a genuine conflict, you think ATC might have said, Southwest, stop your descent?

              Did anyone's TCAS throw a warning?

              You think maybe ATC was in contact with "the traffic just below"?

              Wild speculation- the traffic below had visual contact with SWA?

              What does traffic just below mean operationally? Unless they are on the exact right (~same) course at the exact right (~same) speed, it means nothing...any sort of diverging or opposite heading and this is a big non-factor.

              There's a whole lot of reasons that this is just nice-to-know traffic report and not the massive procedural failure that you so deeply long for.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                What does traffic just below mean operationally?
                Off the top, I believe it means MANAGE YOUR DESCENT until ATC can establish that the conflict is clear (well before it becomes a TCAS event), assuming you are in a nice gradual descent and nothing prevents you from doing so. Assuming, in other words, that you haven't declared emergency, are not depressurized and in a race to breathable atmosphere.

                Whereas if you are depressurized in an emergency descent, and ATC is made aware of this, I tend to think they are going to assign you block clearance, leave you alone and get that traffic the hell out of there.

                ...and not the massive procedural failure that you so deeply long for.
                The only thing I 'long for' is that important lessons are not overlooked. If there is room for improvement, I don't want it to sit vacant. And--once again--I don't know if that is the case here or not.

                So we wait for the report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Off the top, I believe it means MANAGE YOUR DESCENT until ATC can establish that the conflict is clear (well before it becomes a TCAS event), assuming you are in a nice gradual descent and nothing prevents you from doing so. Assuming, in other words, that you haven't declared emergency, are not depressurized and in a race to breathable atmosphere.
                  All words matter...and you seemed to have dismissed this (since it undermines your argument): IF this was a significant factor, what do you think ATC would have said?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    If there is room for improvement, I don't want it to sit vacant...
                    I doubt aviation will ever get to the point where there is not any room for improvement.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      I doubt aviation will ever get to the point where there is not any room for improvement.
                      What is the line that most of our old instructors told us? "You should learn something on every flight".

                      Comment


                      • perhaps you should never have to learn what the two pilots on SICHUAN AIRLINES learned the other day...windshield bursts and cockpit open to the world at cruise. hardly something that should ever happen

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          perhaps you should never have to learn what the two pilots on SICHUAN AIRLINES learned the other day...windshield bursts and cockpit open to the world at cruise. hardly something that should ever happen
                          And yet it was not the 1st time.

                          --- 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 Evan View Post
                            Where did you get that?
                            Good question. He's one of my friends, but.. was he on board? Flight #1380, from LaGuardia to DFW. I don't know. But I can say, I was not on board.

                            PS: One of my friends has changed my signature, because I was not able to do that when I was here the last time. So, Thanks to Lohausen!
                            Erste Liga!
                            The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                            This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              And yet it was not the 1st time.
                              The BA5390 incident was a failure of the window frame. I don't know of another incident in which all the actual layers of the window all failed like that. That really isn't supposed to ever happen. I was just questioning the wisdom of making an emergency descent when an outer layer cracks. It's looking a bit wiser now.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                The BA5390 incident was a failure of the window frame. I don't know of another incident in which all the actual layers of the window all failed like that. That really isn't supposed to ever happen. I was just questioning the wisdom of making an emergency descent when an outer layer cracks. It's looking a bit wiser now.
                                In this case, according to the Captain's account, there was no warning. The windshield burst at once, so there was no time to initiate an earlier, preemptive emergency descent.
                                On top of that, when they did initiate the emergency descent, they initially went down to only 24000 ft due to mountainous terrain.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X