ACCS300 wrote:

Pardon my ignorance but is this Southwest's first-ever fatality? *edit, I know the 2005 Midway incident result in one death but it was not a passenger.

Due to an inflight accident, yes this is the first.

There was an incident in 2000 where an unstable man broke into the cockpit and was subdued and died of asphyxiation but that was not due to a technical fault. Then there was the MDW overrun but thechild was in a car and not onboard.

The Philadelphia news is reporting that the passenger critically injured has past away. Rest In Peace

Imagine if this kind of damage happened on a tMD-80/B717.

tjcab wrote:

dmtroyer wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

They test these engines for failure. But it seems like when they fail in real life they are uncontrolled more often than not. That was a detonation. Lucky there wasnt more structural damage to the wing and fuselage.

My anecdotal guess is that if it was contained it would be a non-event and we'd never hear about it.

One cannot expect to hear about every single incident. This is true about most news items.If it something is a non-event, then it would likely not make it to the news. I am trying to understand the point of your statement.

My statement? I think we're saying the same thing. I was trying to kindly dispute the OP when they said that engine failures are "uncontrolled more often than not". A controlled engine failure that results in a diversion is not a news event.

DaveFly wrote:

CNN just announced that ‘the 737 is a plane that actually has fuel tanks in the wings.’

Just wow!

You can always count on CNN and other media outlets for a quick laugh when it comes to their obvious lack of knowledge about aviation and the stupid, uninformed comments they often make.

NDiesel wrote:

Video from onboard during emergency decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wyWpXGo5Yc

The guy taking the video does not have his O2 mask over his nose and mouth, only his mouth.

NYPECO wrote:

DaveFly wrote:

CNN just announced that ‘the 737 is a plane that actually has fuel tanks in the wings.’

Just wow!

Reminds me of a CNN headline a few years ago involving MH370 which said " Developing story: Boeing 777 will struggle to maintain altitude once fuel tanks are empty."

I really don’t want to believe this, but with modern day journalism I can totally see it. Good grief.

speedbored wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

commpilot wrote:

Kidding right?! ............

No, not kidding at all.

Well you should have been.

At a busy airport like this, when such an emergency occurs, the controller has a huge amount of reorganising to do, aside from assisting the aircraft with the emergency, and arranging and talking to the emergency services, they also have to look after safely moving all of those other aircraft out of the way, putting them into holds, or diverting them. The controller can't just ignore all those other aircraft and hope that they will look after themselves.

If the controller did not start speaking more, and more quickly, then people should start getting worried. Sounds to me like he did a great job.

I'm pretty sure Spree is a controller, so his comments are most certainly coming from an experienced standpoint. I'll preface this by saying that I haven't heard the tape yet, but the point is still the same. Some of the best controllers out there actually speak slower when things are busy. It doesn't help the situation if nobody can understand you, especially if you have to repeat every transmission multiple times. Speaking faster doesn't necessarily mean things happen faster. Controlling the frequency is key, because getting stepped on every ten seconds is as frustrating as it gets. Being measured and deliberate with your speech rate helps to control the frequency. Other aircraft on frequency certainly need attention during an emergency, but they aren't exactly about to fall out of the sky either; other pilots on frequency know when something is going on, and they're usually sympathetic to that. They generally listen better, keep their transmissions short, and try their best to do their part to help out.

alasizon wrote:

And the number of uncontained engine failures on MD-80s resulting in passenger deaths outside of the incident at PNS is how many? Safety policies exist and develop because at some point, something happened that caused an injury or other negative impact. By that same logic, should we ban sitting next to the engine on a Dash 8 and ATRs?

So because it hasn’t happened in 22 years, the risk is now zero? Since only a few passengers died, it doesn’t warrant a change in policy? And since it’s common practice on completely different aircraft types with an entirely different kind of engine or engine configuration, that must also mean there’s no risk, correct?

dampfnudel wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

Rest In Peace to the victim.

At least, although hoping these are very few, air safety will grow significantly safer each time this happens.


What’s the reasoning behind changing the registration number? Same as changing the flight number?

Yep, they don't want it associated with this accident. In the MDW case, they changed the tail number from N471WN to N286WN.

I understand changing the flight number after a fatal crash as well as protecting the airline’s image by spray painting the name/logo of the crashed frame, but changing the reg. number of an aircraft after an incident like this sounds dumb to me or even sketchy like the airline has something to “hide” when a simple google search will inform anyone who wants to know.

I agree, but as they did it in the MDW case where none of their passengers died, I could see them repeating the process for this plane, provided they repair it and return it to service.

This is sad.

What is up with these WN 73G's? Hasn't there been a few incidents with them in the past few years? Maybe it's time to start inspecting them closer for possible defects?

Listening to the LiveATC feed, it's amazing how calm and composed the pilot was. She is certainly an example of composure under pressure.

How long could this aircraft continue to fly?

I’ve always wondered about what would happen if a similar incident occurred on an ETOPS aircraft over the Atlantic or Pacific. How could the aircraft fly for an additional 3 hours (or the length of time certified)? Would the aircraft fly at a lower altitude? Why/why not? How would the cabin crew manage terrified passengers for so long?

DarthLobster wrote:

alasizon wrote:

And the number of uncontained engine failures on MD-80s resulting in passenger deaths outside of the incident at PNS is how many? Safety policies exist and develop because at some point, something happened that caused an injury or other negative impact. By that same logic, should we ban sitting next to the engine on a Dash 8 and ATRs?

So because it hasn’t happened in 22 years, the risk is now zero? And since it’s common practice on completely different aircraft types with an entirely different kind of engine, that must also mean there’s no risk, correct?

Also, safety policies do indeed exist because something negative happened, so what in your logic disqualifies DL1288?

What were the NTSB's safety recommendations in their final report on DL1288? Did they recommend airlines reconfigure the seating on all aircraft with rear-mounted engines?

Truly, the risk level of dying while crossing the street is also nonzero, and I don't honestly see how this pertains to this incident involving WN 1380.

NTSB is stating that 1 person died. RIP.. Feels really bad..

citationjet wrote:

NDiesel wrote:

Video from onboard during emergency decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wyWpXGo5Yc

The guy taking the video does not have his O2 mask over his nose and mouth, only his mouth.

One of those people who don't pay attention to safety videos....

Erebus wrote:

citationjet wrote:

NDiesel wrote:

Video from onboard during emergency decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wyWpXGo5Yc

The guy taking the video does not have his O2 mask over his nose and mouth, only his mouth.

One of those people who don't pay attention to safety videos....

What about the strap practically vertical around his head. Sheesh

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

Exaggerations like this from an overly emotional and hyper passenger do not help matters. Unless accurate information can be provided about an incident, stay off social media completely. I’ve seen this woman’s comment already picked up on a number of local news websites and rebroadcast as fact.

I think passengers accounts can be useful if interpreted within context that they may be exaggerated but contain partial information. For example, a passenger wouldn't say "I just saw a human being fly out of a plane 40,000 feet above" if something didn't happen that made them think that someone was sucked out of the plane. You can probably de-exaggerate that and presume that the cabin was penetrated and someone was sucked towards outside.

Also, some passenger said that the plane was "free falling for 10-15 minutes". Obviously, that cannot be true, but if you view that statement through the eyes of a panicked passenger, you can surmise that the pilot was descending rapidly due to cabin depressurization.

I also think back to the Asiana crash where witnesses on the ground said that the plane cartwheeled upon crashing, and many posters discounted that statement. But again, that kind of statement indicates that it wasn't just a simple skidding off the runway. After the video came out, it showed that the plane spun 360 degrees while almost at a 45 degree angle, so it could appear like cartwheeling to a distant observer.

Delta717 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

alasizon wrote:

And the number of uncontained engine failures on MD-80s resulting in passenger deaths outside of the incident at PNS is how many? Safety policies exist and develop because at some point, something happened that caused an injury or other negative impact. By that same logic, should we ban sitting next to the engine on a Dash 8 and ATRs?

So because it hasn’t happened in 22 years, the risk is now zero? And since it’s common practice on completely different aircraft types with an entirely different kind of engine, that must also mean there’s no risk, correct?

Also, safety policies do indeed exist because something negative happened, so what in your logic disqualifies DL1288?

What were the NTSB's safety recommendations in their final report on DL1288? Did they recommend airlines reconfigure the seating on all aircraft with rear-mounted engines?

Truly, the risk level of dying while crossing the street is also nonzero, and I don't honestly see how this pertains to this incident involving WN 1380.

They should have. The risk is clear. You have passengers sitting only a few feet away from a running jet engine, and if that engine suffers an uncontained failure, those passengers will likely die. It doesn’t take a statistician or presidential commission to figure that out. But, because of the massive number of MD-80s operating in the late 90s that would have required reconfiguration and the statistical improbably of it occurring again, here we sit. Easier to fault a maintenance procedure or insufficient inspections than make actual hard changes to safeguard passengers.

Also, seeing as DL1288 was the last time there was a passenger fatality in the US due to uncontained engine failure, it’s relevant to the discussion.

indcwby wrote:

Imagine if this kind of damage happened on a tMD-80/B717.

Well, not in the air, but this did happen at PNS with DL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air ... light_1288

Acey wrote:

"We are single engine and... that's it," she says when ZNY asks for a bit more detail. I don't think I heard her say anything about possible decomp at that point but surely they knew at that stage.

We probably don't have all the audio. ATC would certainly have a clue that there was decompression as she dives for 10,000 feet from FL320 at 3000+ fpm.

dragon6172 wrote:

Erebus wrote:

citationjet wrote:

The guy taking the video does not have his O2 mask over his nose and mouth, only his mouth.

One of those people who don't pay attention to safety videos....

What about the strap practically vertical around his head. Sheesh

They are descending at 3000fpm. His need for supplemental oxygen will continue to reduce as they get lower.

DaveFly wrote:

CNN just announced that ‘the 737 is a plane that actually has fuel tanks in the wings.’

Just wow!

Are we missing something in your sarcasm?

questions wrote:

How long could this aircraft continue to fly?

I’ve always wondered about what would happen if a similar incident occurred on an ETOPS aircraft over the Atlantic or Pacific. How could the aircraft fly for an additional 3 hours (or the length of time certified)? Would the aircraft fly at a lower altitude? Why/why not? How would the cabin crew manage terrified passengers for so long?

As long as the fuel held out and the other engine continued to run. That is part of the ETOPS minimum fuel requirement. An aircraft on one engine will burn more fuel because of the need for a lower altitude (roughly FL250), but a loss of cabin pressure would require a flight at 10k feet - burning even greater amounts. This is all taken into consideration for ETOPS.

DarthLobster wrote:

Delta717 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

So because it hasn’t happened in 22 years, the risk is now zero? And since it’s common practice on completely different aircraft types with an entirely different kind of engine, that must also mean there’s no risk, correct?

Also, safety policies do indeed exist because something negative happened, so what in your logic disqualifies DL1288?

What were the NTSB's safety recommendations in their final report on DL1288? Did they recommend airlines reconfigure the seating on all aircraft with rear-mounted engines?

Truly, the risk level of dying while crossing the street is also nonzero, and I don't honestly see how this pertains to this incident involving WN 1380.

They should have. The risk is clear. You have passengers sitting only a few feet away from a running jet engine, and if that engine suffers an uncontained failure, those passengers will likely die. It doesn’t take a statistician or presidential commission to figure that out. But, because of the massive number of MD-80s operating in the late 90s that would have required reconfiguration and the statistical improbably of it occurring again, here we sit. Easier to fault a maintenance procedure or insufficient inspections than make actual hard changes to safeguard passengers.

Also, seeing as DL1288 was the last time there was a passenger fatality in the US due to uncontained engine failure, it’s relevant to the discussion.

I've only flown in an MD80/90 line aircraft once, it was on SAS and it was the lat row where I have a lovely view of the nacelle from Copenhagen to Dublin. I hadn't given thought to an uncontained engine failure. However, I did have four flight legs to and from Quebec last year on Porter and on each leg had a wonderful window seat next to the prop, and it did cross my mind. My take away was that if that thing goes, I'll go so fast I won't even have time to notice.

We probably don't have all the audio. ATC would certainly have a clue that there was decompression as she dives for 10,000 feet from FL320 at 3000+ fpm.

Actually, I think we do. I listened from the time they declared to the time they landed. They did not mention decompression. They mentioned a suspected engine fire. The "hole in the plane" comment was made on approach, well after descending below 12k feet.

BBCNews is reporting that the woman sucked out the window did not survive her injuries. My thoughts are with her and her family.

I imagine she sustained mortal injuries being sucked through that small window. What a shame.

It will be interesting to read the NTSB report on this accident.

Looks like the passenger bled to death all over the outside of the airplane.

danj555 wrote:

I don't see any large holes on the left side fuselage... not sure how someone could get sucked out.... ohhh I see a window is out... its possible then

Explosive de-compression causes a vacum in the airplane momentarily until the pressure equalizes and could suck a passenger out of the airplane if they're not secured, Unfortunately the engine came apart and probably Killed the passenger with shrapnel. LORD Bless and Keep them

Delta717 wrote:

What were the NTSB's safety recommendations in their final report on DL1288? Did they recommend airlines reconfigure the seating on all aircraft with rear-mounted engines?

IIRC wasn't there an AD requiring a Kevlar barrier (ie. the material bullet-proof vests are made of) around the engines on the MD-80 and possibly other planes with a similar configuration as a result of that accident?

I'd read on a news site, although I can't for the life of me find it right now, that the deceased passenger died of a heart attack at the hospital after arriving there. Hard to imagine the situation wasn't at least a contributing cause, of course.

Which row was the window that blew out. All the windows (that you can see) on CNN's website seem to be intact. The winglet obsures a window or two well behind the engine so perhaps the window is hidden.

Yflyer wrote:

Delta717 wrote:

What were the NTSB's safety recommendations in their final report on DL1288? Did they recommend airlines reconfigure the seating on all aircraft with rear-mounted engines?

IIRC wasn't there an AD requiring a Kevlar barrier (ie. the material bullet-proof vests are made of) around the engines on the MD-80 and possibly other planes with a similar configuration as a result of that accident?

I know the AD went out requiring kevlar-lined "super-boxes" for carriage of medical oxygen tanks, which is why airlines no longer provide supplemental oxygen tanks outside of the normal emergency equipment. Not sure about lining the area adjacent to the cabin or around the cowling on MD80s to avoid damage from uncontained engine failures, though.

Sadly it sounds like one female passenger has died. Never good to assume, but sounds like it was due to injuries from shrapnel.
Very sad for her family.
RIP

JAAlbert wrote:

Which row was the window that blew out. All the windows (that you can see) on CNN's website seem to be intact. The winglet obsures a window or two well behind the engine so perhaps the window is hidden.

Left side of the aircraft, just behind the over-wing exit; you can see one window is blown out.

JAAlbert wrote:

Which row was the window that blew out. All the windows (that you can see) on CNN's website seem to be intact. The winglet obsures a window or two well behind the engine so perhaps the window is hidden.

It is the 4th window behind the overwing exit. CNN’s website has a few shots where you can see it.

One of my pilot friends posted a link to the Philadelphia airport's Facebook page. Apparently lots of passengers were wearing their oxygen masks incorrectly. They were wearing them over their mouths only instead of over their mouths and noses.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... ent_filter

EA CO AS wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

Which row was the window that blew out. All the windows (that you can see) on CNN's website seem to be intact. The winglet obsures a window or two well behind the engine so perhaps the window is hidden.

Left side of the aircraft, just behind the over-wing exit; you can see one window is blown out.

Should be near row 20, or so. So let's say 20A or thereabouts.

I’m not sure that WN could have handled this any better from how their crew got the plane to 10000 feet and then to the ground within 20 minutes, Gary Kelly’s public statement, and on social media (their logo now representing a broken heart). RIP to the family of the woman who died.

hey you don't think that this was caused by a hair line stress fracture on one of the blades and it finally had enough stress and caused this to happen i have a feeling this is going to blow back on southwest maintenance department i mean this has happened before at least NTSB has the plane and the FDR and the voice recorder they should find out what casued this fast i have a a feeling this is caused by lack of SWA aircraft maintenance it just feels like it

WeatherPilot wrote:

Looks like the passenger bled to death all over the outside of the airplane.

Shocking picture. From some of the pax accounts, they indicated more her body (torso) and arms pulled through the window. Seems plausible.

The picture of the window from the inside doesn’t show much/any blood. Though the rows behind them, outside are covered in blood.

scbriml wrote:

PolarRoute wrote:

Another uncontained engine failure from GE following AF066 and SW3472. I wonder if this is just coincidence?

None of those are "GE engines".

CFM are not GE, they are Safran as much as GE. EA are not GE, they are PW as much as GE.

Yes, I’m aware.
But they all look much alike to one another, and if that indicates anything then it’d be that the engines have some sort of defect in common. And again, IF that’s true, it’s likely that they have all gone through a faulted manufacturing process. And that’s gonna be GE rather than Safran and PW having the same type of flaw in two different production lines.
I was speculating in these contexts.

SWA3472, B737 700 KMSY-KMCO 8/27/16, N766SW, CFM56-7 engines, 18 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL310, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPNS.

SWA1380, B737 700 KLGA-KDAL 4/17/18, N772SW, CFM56-7 engines, 17.8 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL320, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage window resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPHL.

IMO eerie similarities. Total cycles on each of these CFM56-7 engines before the noted engine incidents?

cat3appr50 wrote:

SWA3472, B737 700 KMSY-KMCO 8/27/16, N766SW, CFM56-7 engines, 18 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL310, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPNS.

SWA1380, B737 700 KLGA-KDAL 4/17/18, N772SW, CFM56-7 engines, 17.8 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL320, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage window resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPHL.

IMO eerie similarities. Total cycles on each of these CFM56-7 engines before the noted engine incidents?

Sounds like NTSB need's to look the engine lifespan on the CFM's. I wonder will FAA issue AD on CFM's

DarthLobster wrote:

Delta717 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

So because it hasn’t happened in 22 years, the risk is now zero? And since it’s common practice on completely different aircraft types with an entirely different kind of engine, that must also mean there’s no risk, correct?

Also, safety policies do indeed exist because something negative happened, so what in your logic disqualifies DL1288?

What were the NTSB's safety recommendations in their final report on DL1288? Did they recommend airlines reconfigure the seating on all aircraft with rear-mounted engines?

Truly, the risk level of dying while crossing the street is also nonzero, and I don't honestly see how this pertains to this incident involving WN 1380.

They should have. The risk is clear. You have passengers sitting only a few feet away from a running jet engine, and if that engine suffers an uncontained failure, those passengers will likely die. It doesn’t take a statistician or presidential commission to figure that out. But, because of the massive number of MD-80s operating in the late 90s that would have required reconfiguration and the statistical improbably of it occurring again, here we sit. Easier to fault a maintenance procedure or insufficient inspections than make actual hard changes to safeguard passengers.

Also, seeing as DL1288 was the last time there was a passenger fatality in the US due to uncontained engine failure, it’s relevant to the discussion.

I think you're too hung up on this issue. Factoring in the DC-9 family and 727's alone, with over 50 years of operation with seat by engines, and one fatality, there is no need for this to be of concern. Now figure in damage to engine on wing aircraft (QANTAS A380 comes to mind)

teme82 wrote:

cat3appr50 wrote:

SWA3472, B737 700 KMSY-KMCO 8/27/16, N766SW, CFM56-7 engines, 18 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL310, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPNS.

SWA1380, B737 700 KLGA-KDAL 4/17/18, N772SW, CFM56-7 engines, 17.8 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL320, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage window resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPHL.

IMO eerie similarities. Total cycles on each of these CFM56-7 engines before the noted engine incidents?

Sounds like NTSB need's to look the engine lifespan on the CFM's. I wonder will FAA issue AD on CFM's

Age of the airframe tells us nothing about age of the engines. Engines get switched around all the time (especially for an airline the size of WN). They don’t hang on the same wing from delivery to retirement.

“The left engine blew, and it apparently threw shrapnel into one of the windows and depressurized the plane immediately,” Baur said. “A woman seated close to that window and was almost taken out of the airplane and was pulled back in.”

Baur said passengers around her jumped into action and secured her back into the airplane, but the woman needed immediate medical attention.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/south ... 80417.html

Friends of the family tell KOB that Jennifer Riordan was the passenger transported to a Philadelphia hospital. Riordan later died from her injuries. The New Mexico Broadcasters Association also confirmed Riordan died in the accident. Riordan, was the VP of Community Relations at Wells Fargo in Albuquerque, and was married to a top executive in former Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry's administration. Her husband, Michael, served as the city's chief operating officer.

One of Riordan's close friends told KOB on the phone she was a remarkable woman and a remarkable mother to two young children. Paula Maes of the New Mexico Broadcasters Association said Riordan was a former NMBA board member and received one of its scholarships in the 1990s.

http://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/alb ... 0/?cat=500

http://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque ... e/19844383

A Southwest Airlines jet apparently blew an engine at about 30,000 feet and got hit by shrapnel that smashed a window and damaged the fuselage Tuesday, killing a passenger and injuring seven others, authorities said.

Multiple sources confirm the passenger who died is Jennifer Riordan of Albuquerque.

http://www.krqe.com/news/national/jet-w ... 1127391186

cat3appr50 wrote:

SWA3472, B737 700 KMSY-KMCO 8/27/16, N766SW, CFM56-7 engines, 18 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL310, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPNS.

SWA1380, B737 700 KLGA-KDAL 4/17/18, N772SW, CFM56-7 engines, 17.8 yrs. old, L engine uncontained failure in climb at FL320, cowl section separated and impacted fuselage window resulting in loss of cabin pressure and emergency descent to KPHL.

IMO eerie similarities. Total cycles on each of these CFM56-7 engines before the noted engine incidents?

While I understand your point, you have to look at the numbers. In the time between those two incidents, the entire Southwest fleet of 737s has amassed well over half a million to several million cycles without a similar incident occuring. Those odds are extremely long.

flyzapper wrote:

Listening to the LiveATC feed, it's amazing how calm and composed the pilot was. She is certainly an example of composure under pressure.

There is some reporting emerging that she was one the first female fighter pilots in the history of the U.S. Navy and one of the first women to ever fly the F/A-18 before she became an instructor. This is apparently from her schools's alumni newsletter from 10+ years ago:

"Alumna of the Year: Tammie Jo (Bonnell) Shults

Tammie Jo Shults with her Navy fighter jet.
When she tried to attend aviation career day at her high school, Tammie Jo (Bonnell) Shults was told they didn’t accept girls.

Wondering what step to take next, she decided to enroll at MNU because it had a good pre-med program and she had an interest in veterinary medicine. However Shults’ desire to fly never went away.

“In my junior year I went to an Air Force winging with a friend whose brother was getting his wings,” said Shults. “And, lo, there was a girl in his class.”
After graduation, Shults applied to the Air Force, but found they wouldn’t allow her to take the test to become a pilot. The Navy, however, was more welcoming.

Shults became one of the first female fighter pilots in the history of the U.S. Navy and one of the first women to fly F-18s. She landed her fighter plane on boats at 150 miles per hour and eventually became an instructor. Although she wasn’t allowed to fly in combat, she did fly as an aggressor pilot. After a successful career, she resigned her commission in 1993. Shults and her husband, Dean, are now captains with Southwest Airlines."

https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/tammie-j ... gine-hero/