SW 1380 one passenger dead: Uncontained engine failure and emergency landing at PHL
Apr 18, 2018, 1:34 pm
#181
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cockeysville, MD
Programs: Marriott Rewards Lifetime Titanium, Amex Plat, Hertz Gold 5*, National Exec, AA Plat
Posts: 9,467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ys_Flight_5390
Apr 18, 2018, 2:18 pm
#182
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,638
There is alot of talk about this guy thinking he was going to die. But was that realistic?
I get that in such a situation there is confusion and a lack of information..but I also know that de-compression in and of itself is not terminal to the flight envelope. Engine failure isn't either on multi-engine aircraft. A blown window is not structurally critical to the integrity of the airframe on a 737, particularly when only the glass is destroyed. I know that an emergency descent is standard procedure, and that the aircraft was still under control in that it's not rolling or yawing, or inverted. Had I been on the aircraft, I think I would have been confident in the survivability of the situation even without knowing the nature of the damage to the fuselage provided I sensed that that the aircraft was still under control. At least, as opposed to a situation like Alaska 261 where as a pax it would have been absolutely clear that this would be the end. But then again, who knows what this guy knew about flight and procedures.
I get that in such a situation there is confusion and a lack of information..but I also know that de-compression in and of itself is not terminal to the flight envelope. Engine failure isn't either on multi-engine aircraft. A blown window is not structurally critical to the integrity of the airframe on a 737, particularly when only the glass is destroyed. I know that an emergency descent is standard procedure, and that the aircraft was still under control in that it's not rolling or yawing, or inverted. Had I been on the aircraft, I think I would have been confident in the survivability of the situation even without knowing the nature of the damage to the fuselage provided I sensed that that the aircraft was still under control. At least, as opposed to a situation like Alaska 261 where as a pax it would have been absolutely clear that this would be the end. But then again, who knows what this guy knew about flight and procedures.
While most of us on this forum are better informed and educated about aircraft safety, doesn't mean the general public and travelers would be. Who are you to judge how a person behaves and thinks when an aircraft window is actually blown open during flight and witnesses a fellow pax being partially sucked out of the blown window. For most people just turbulence is frightening enough, let alone an actual breach in the aircraft fuselage.
Was there certainty that the aircraft would stay intact, that no further damage would result, that everything needed to land safely would be functioning properly? To these passengers, absolutely not.
Was there certainty that the aircraft would stay intact, that no further damage would result, that everything needed to land safely would be functioning properly? To these passengers, absolutely not.
Even if one is better informed than the general public that aircraft can fly on one engine and hole in fuselage, there was no way to know what other damage engine shrapnel could have caused while one was a passenger in that situation. Take UA 232 as an example, the pilots knew controls were lost but the passengers wouldn't have known the extend of the damage while they were still in the aircraft short of the crew informing them of the true nature of situation.
Apr 18, 2018, 2:31 pm
#183
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
More info regarding the engine and the previously directed inspections.
Last year, the engine maker and the Federal Aviation Administration instructed airlines to make ultrasonic inspections of the fan blades of engines like those on the Southwest jet. The FAA said the move was prompted by a report of a fan blade failing and hurling debris. A Southwest spokeswoman said the engine that failed Tuesday was not covered by that directive, but the airline announced it would speed up ultrasonic inspections of fan blades of its CFM56-series engines anyway.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:12 pm
#184
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DCA, lived MCI, SEA/PDX,BUF (born/raised)
Programs: Marriott (Silver/Gold), IHG, Carlson, Best Western, Choice( Gold), AS (MVP), WN, UA
Posts: 8,736
This is something to watch for.
Unsure if engine debris broke the window and hit her
When she got sucked out the window how hard did body clam again the side causing internal injuries
was her head outside the window causing a lack of oxygen.
The last one I think wouldn't have killed her because pilots immediate reaction was to drop the plane to under 10,000 feet where there is enough oxygen to breathe.
being injured and beat up would impair someone normal breathing in such a situation and their survivability.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:22 pm
#188
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: pleb
Posts: 563
“The top half of her torso was out the window,” passenger Max Kraidelman, 20, told the New York Times. “There was a lot of blood because she was hit by some of the shrapnel coming off the engine after it exploded.”
Southwest Passengers Describe Moment Woman Was Sucked Through Window | PEOPLE.com
Peggy Phillips, a retired nurse, told ABC News that a medical technician on board and another passenger pulled the woman back inside. The moment they laid her down, Phillips began administering CPR. She did so for about 20 minutes before the plane made the emergency landing.
“If you can possibly imagine going through the window of an airplane at about 600 miles an hour and hitting either the fuselage or the wing with your body, with your face,” Phillips said, calling the ordeal “terrifying.” “I can probably tell you there was significant trauma to the body.”
Apr 18, 2018, 3:24 pm
#189
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,353
Is there confirmation beyond the early passenger tweets etc that someone had a heart attack? My reading is that CPR was performed on this woman who was pulled back in because she was probably (and I'd say hopefully for her sake) unconscious. People who were strapped in and couldn't see everything might have thought there was a second passenger having a heart attack and getting CPR.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:37 pm
#190
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
The tone of the seatbelt discussion from some is bull crop.
That said, out of curiosity, what are the g-forces of severe turbulence vs. a decompression? And for how long are those forces sustained?
The other question is what was the timeframe between the initial engine blowout and the shrapnel piercing the aircraft? I thought I read somewhere there was another initial hole the crew was trying to deal with first. If that's the case, I would certainly hope that all pax would have buckled up, but per the Q's above, I don't know if that would have even helped.
That said, out of curiosity, what are the g-forces of severe turbulence vs. a decompression? And for how long are those forces sustained?
The other question is what was the timeframe between the initial engine blowout and the shrapnel piercing the aircraft? I thought I read somewhere there was another initial hole the crew was trying to deal with first. If that's the case, I would certainly hope that all pax would have buckled up, but per the Q's above, I don't know if that would have even helped.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:40 pm
#191
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Treasure Coast, FL
Programs: DL Diamond, Marriott LT Plat, HH Diamond, Avis Preferred Plus, National Executive
Posts: 4,578
Is there confirmation beyond the early passenger tweets etc that someone had a heart attack? My reading is that CPR was performed on this woman who was pulled back in because she was probably (and I'd say hopefully for her sake) unconscious. People who were strapped in and couldn't see everything might have thought there was a second passenger having a heart attack and getting CPR.
Someone saw CPR being administered and thought someone was having a heart attack.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:43 pm
#192
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2.7MM, Marriott Titanium/LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,317
I suspect. We know that they were doing CPR on this passenger so I suspect that other pax thought that she had had a heart attack. We haven't heard anything about a different one having a heart attack other than in the initial reports.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
#193
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
Why? It's just an arbitrary number. Given one fan blade flying away, the probability of fan blade 13 being the one to disappear is exactly the same as the probability of fan blade 7 (lucky 7!!!) disappearing or any other one of the 24 fan blades -- 1 in 24. It's less than a coincidence... it's superstition, which is an impediment to logic and reasoning.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:50 pm
#194
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,353
If there was another initial hole and IF it occurred even slightly earlier than the window being destroyed, the catastrophic decompression would have occurred before the window next to the woman was shattered, so the forces affecting her body wouldn't have been nearly as large. Maybe this is why they were able to prevent her body from completely leaving the aircraft.
Apr 18, 2018, 3:53 pm
#195
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,808
While most of us on this forum are better informed and educated about aircraft safety, doesn't mean the general public and travelers would be. Who are you to judge how a person behaves and thinks when an aircraft window is actually blown open during flight and witnesses a fellow pax being partially sucked out of the blown window. For most people just turbulence is frightening enough, let alone an actual breach in the aircraft fuselage.
Was there certainty that the aircraft would stay intact, that no further damage would result, that everything needed to land safely would be functioning properly? To these passengers, absolutely not.
Was there certainty that the aircraft would stay intact, that no further damage would result, that everything needed to land safely would be functioning properly? To these passengers, absolutely not.
I perfectly understand his thinking. However, I asked if it was realistic. That's not a judgement on his character or intelligence. Smart, good people can be unrealistic. It's not an insult, slight, or any sort of statement. It is a question and not to be confused with any definitive statement about the person. So withhold your knee jerk sanctimoniousness.
Yes, many people are terrified of turbulence. That doesn't make it rational or reflective of the nature and state of reality. Nor does the fact that many hold the view suggest that it's true.