D L X wrote:

On CNN this evening, Don Lemon interviewed one of the passengers. He said there was a loud bang and then a few seconds passed and then there was a second loud bang, which included a whoosh and wind.

Theory: the first bang had to be the fan blowing and cowling separating. The shrapnel from that explosion hit the fuselage in a spray, with enough hitting the area around the window area a few rows back that it failed and blew outward. Really, it could have been any of the windows near the engine, but that one blew first, relieving the pressure and preventing further blows.

I don't think that a passenger would perceive a multi-second gap between failure of the cowling and/or intake, and impact of failed parts with the fuselage.

It sounds more like a two stage failure - for example, a contained single blade failure leading to a few seconds of vibration or engine malfunction which caused the subsequent liberation of parts a few seconds later. (note: i'm NOT suggesting this is what happened, only that it is a scenario that would allow for a few seconds gap between a first "bang" and then a second "bang" which included cabin pressurization changes.

Perhaps the cowling area material broke first, thus breaking off the fan blade.... Seeing as how so much of the damage is ahead of where the fan blade resides.
Seems if the blade broke off on its own, the blades adjacent would have been in a lot worse shape IMO.

https://youtu.be/IFzLkFZUUS0

If you watch this NTSB video in 1080p, there is additional damage to the aircraft, including a small hole in the pylon and substantial damage to the slats outboard of the engine. There are a few places where you can see behind the missing fan blade, and there does not appear to be any carnage for what little is visible.

So on a Discord server I'm on someone posted a pic of passengers with the masks on.

Well, I say on. More like leaned up against their mouth or being held there. Totally missing the fact it's supposed to go over your nose and there is an elastic band to keep it on. :/


And a question about the deceased passenger. Do we know if they were wearing their seatbelt at the time of the decompression? I have some further thoughts but they're dependent on if they were belted in or not.

Condolences to the deceased's friends and family. And huge props to the flight and cabin crew for getting the bird on the ground quickly and safely.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

So on a Discord server I'm on someone posted a pic of passengers with the masks on.

Well, I say on. More like leaned up against their mouth or being held there. Totally missing the fact it's supposed to go over your nose and there is an elastic band to keep it on. :/


And a question about the deceased passenger. Do we know if they were wearing their seatbelt at the time of the decompression? I have some further thoughts but they're dependent on if they were belted in or not.

Condolences to the deceased's friends and family. And huge props to the flight and cabin crew for getting the bird on the ground quickly and safely.

I read somewhere she did, but as pointed out airline seat belts are mostly effective against forward-rearward acceleration, not sideways as a window blowout would have been.

This really was a terrible incident, that picture of the outside of the plane with the blood will stay with me for a long time..

nm2582 wrote:

It sounds more like a two stage failure - for example, a contained single blade failure leading to a few seconds of vibration or engine malfunction which caused the subsequent liberation of parts a few seconds later. (note: i'm NOT suggesting this is what happened, only that it is a scenario that would allow for a few seconds gap between a first "bang" and then a second "bang" which included cabin pressurization changes.

First bang, engine failed, window is damaged. second bang, window blows out...? However, would that scenario cause injuries to other passengers than the unfortunate woman who was almost sucked out?

Hmmm.

The 1st compressor stage of the engine still delivers fresh air from the outside to pressurize the cabin. Would it be possible to switch off that air supply presto to stop air rushing out a broken window?


David

R.I.P. to Jennifer Riordan.

Is the DL1288 flight in 1996 the last time passengers were killed by an uncontained engine failure in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air ... and_deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... light_5390

Tim Lancaster lived on after being sucked out through the front window and pinned half naked to the outside of the flight deck roof for the remainder of the flight. The crew assumed he was dead but held on just in case and also to prevent the poor chap damaging the engines or tailplanes.
The sheer kinetic energy of anything metal striking this poor woman is a whole new order of magnitude before she was sucked out of a window which is too small to fit through without breaking you first.

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

So on a Discord server I'm on someone posted a pic of passengers with the masks on.

Well, I say on. More like leaned up against their mouth or being held there. Totally missing the fact it's supposed to go over your nose and there is an elastic band to keep it on. :/


And a question about the deceased passenger. Do we know if they were wearing their seatbelt at the time of the decompression? I have some further thoughts but they're dependent on if they were belted in or not.

Condolences to the deceased's friends and family. And huge props to the flight and cabin crew for getting the bird on the ground quickly and safely.

I read somewhere she did, but as pointed out airline seat belts are mostly effective against forward-rearward acceleration, not sideways as a window blowout would have been.

This really was a terrible incident, that picture of the outside of the plane with the blood will stay with me for a long time..

Cheers, I'll hold my tongue until further information comes out then.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Tucker1 wrote:

A person died. Period.

Died... at the Hospital. I believe that's was reported.

My understanding is they were pronounced dead at the hospital. Gods Speed to them.

nm2582 wrote:

D L X wrote:

On CNN this evening, Don Lemon interviewed one of the passengers. He said there was a loud bang and then a few seconds passed and then there was a second loud bang, which included a whoosh and wind.

Theory: the first bang had to be the fan blowing and cowling separating. The shrapnel from that explosion hit the fuselage in a spray, with enough hitting the area around the window area a few rows back that it failed and blew outward. Really, it could have been any of the windows near the engine, but that one blew first, relieving the pressure and preventing further blows.

I don't think that a passenger would perceive a multi-second gap between failure of the cowling and/or intake, and impact of failed parts with the fuselage.

It sounds more like a two stage failure - for example, a contained single blade failure leading to a few seconds of vibration or engine malfunction which caused the subsequent liberation of parts a few seconds later. (note: i'm NOT suggesting this is what happened, only that it is a scenario that would allow for a few seconds gap between a first "bang" and then a second "bang" which included cabin pressurization changes.

A passenger would absolutely perceive a multiple second delay between two bangs. The first would get your attention, making you perceive the second one even better. (It’s the principle the terrroriats used in 9/11 to make everyone watch the second plane hit.)
I think it’s more unlikely that there were a few seconds between the engine failing with a bang then blowing up with a bang. If it were the engine parts hitting the fuselage causing a simultaneous decompression, then you’d find engine parts INSIDE the plane, and a bunch more people with shrapnel injuries.

dampfnudel wrote:

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.

I remember that CNN headline. Never taken them seriously since, for most people it’s political stuff that forces them to lose it for a network, for me it’s this sort of headline in such circumstances. Maybe CNN didn’t want to confuse the 737 and A320 which apparently doesn’t have wing tankage?
I believe this is the first death of a passenger due to an accident on US soil since Asiana 214. Which had its own news blunder associated with it regarding the names of the flight crew. When’s the last time a mechanical issue caused a fatality on US soil? AA 587? If we call that pilot error then would it be AS 261?
To all members of the WN family, as an ERAU student I empathize greatly, tragic events such as this hit really close to home. It’s very hard and there are a lot of questions and not always answers.
I know someone who was working the gate adjacent to the gate AS 261 was due into at Seattle. She vividly remembers that day like it was yesterday.

Very sad and unusual event. UEF are not common at all althoguh the last incidents are certainly gathering a lot of attention due to the consequences ( AF Goose Bay, now this ). Let's hope the investigation could help to understand what happened.

RIP to the passenger and deepest condolences to family and Friends.

Rgds.
G.

flyingturtle wrote:

Hmmm.

The 1st compressor stage of the engine still delivers fresh air from the outside to pressurize the cabin. Would it be possible to switch off that air supply presto to stop air rushing out a broken window?


David

Ummm...

The compressed air is already in the fuselage. That's what rushes out, not the new air being supplied.

Hate to say or but the deal the pilot was a woman that saved the flight will be the running theme of coverage today.

QXAS wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

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.

I remember that CNN headline. Never taken them seriously since, for most people it’s political stuff that forces them to lose it for a network, for me it’s this sort of headline in such circumstances.

At least CNN was not wrong.
Yes, it`s pretty low level info; but I bet a lot of people don`t know where the fuel of an aircraft is carried.
Don`t forget, they report to the general public; not to the aviation world only.

CNN gets slammed when they get details wrong, and yet they get slammed if they state the truth; just because it`s too darn obvious to the aviation world.
Yes, I often chuckle with stuff I read and hear in the press with regards to aviation; but this was not a particularly bad example IMHO.
Interesting that you´d abandon a whole network only due to that.
It is my guess that you could catch most press outlets out; when it comes to lower quality articles or bulletins at times.

Fun fact: my 1st solo flight was in a plane that did NOT carry the fuel in the wings.

No Tax On Rotax

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Hate to say or but the deal the pilot was a woman that saved the flight will be the running theme of coverage today.

It already was yesterday

She did a great job, but from what I understand - post shut-down the aircraft was in a normal state (minus depressurization of course).

Basically a single-engine approach and landing, albeit with a mask on for a portion of it.

If anything I noticed the winds were rather gusty which would probably make a single-engine landing a little more fun, but nothing crazy.

Not sure if it was verified yet, but a prior post mentioned her being in the Navy and flying F/A-18s. If true I'm sure that's the type of character you'd want in that moment, processing information at a high rate and remaining calm was basically her job description as a fighter pilot.

estorilm wrote:

She did a great job, but from what I understand - post shut-down the aircraft was in a normal state (minus depressurization of course).

Far from a "normal state"- the damage and debris causes unpredictable drag patterns over the wing and there could be other unknown damage to control surfaces. I'm not sure that a sim even attempts to model that. Landed with Flaps 5 and at higher speed due to possible controllability concerns in normal approach config.

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

So on a Discord server I'm on someone posted a pic of passengers with the masks on.

Well, I say on. More like leaned up against their mouth or being held there. Totally missing the fact it's supposed to go over your nose and there is an elastic band to keep it on. :/


And a question about the deceased passenger. Do we know if they were wearing their seatbelt at the time of the decompression? I have some further thoughts but they're dependent on if they were belted in or not.

Condolences to the deceased's friends and family. And huge props to the flight and cabin crew for getting the bird on the ground quickly and safely.

I read somewhere she did, but as pointed out airline seat belts are mostly effective against forward-rearward acceleration, not sideways as a window blowout would have been.

This really was a terrible incident, that picture of the outside of the plane with the blood will stay with me for a long time..

She would have required a 4 point harness like ones used by pilots to avoid being sucked out. There's something like an 8.6 PSI difference between the inside and outside. Assuming the window is about a square foot of area, that's about 1200 pounds of force pushing air out of the cabin right next to her seat at the time the window broke.

RogerMurdock wrote:

estorilm wrote:

She did a great job, but from what I understand - post shut-down the aircraft was in a normal state (minus depressurization of course).

Far from a "normal state"- the damage and debris causes unpredictable drag patterns over the wing and there could be other unknown damage to control surfaces. I'm not sure that a sim even attempts to model that. Landed with Flaps 5 and at higher speed due to possible controllability concerns in normal approach config.

The drag patterns weren't "over the wing" unless you're talking about turbulence caused by the missing cowl, which would be the only drag I'd imagine vs. a "normal" engine out approach.

Looks like full slats and flaps were available (slats a little banged up) why do you say flaps 5? Is this verified? She made no mention of a fast approach/landing to ATC, no brake issues, etc.

Not taking anything away from the pilot at all, again she did an amazing job - just talking about the state of the aircraft from a systems perspective.

You saying "not sure a sim can even model that" makes it sound like there's asymmetrical flap/slat deployment, loss of half hydraulics, limited control authority, weight/balance issues, etc. If you read the actual report on the damage to QF32 you'll realize the definition of an "abnormal state" haha.

So was depressurization the cause of death, or was it cuts from the window, or the impact of the object which broke through the window, or a combination of the three? A lot happened....
Awful...
Will this elicit a look at seat-belt design?
Perhaps open-rotors will get a setback as well, given the greater danger they pose in a blade failure (no casing to control a failure)?

LAX772LR wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Birds at FL320 is pretty much a non-starter.

That's not true at all.

Ruppell's Griffon vultures, Demoiselle cranes, Common cranes, Bar-headed geese, and probably plenty of other species that I don't know about-- have all been observed flying over 30,000ft.

Granted, none in this area... but still.

There are about 300 billion birds on this planet. Assuming 3 million would be able to reach FL300+, that equates to 0.001% of the bird population. If then assuming that they be spending less than 10% of their life at these altitudes, the percentage goes further down a full order of magnitude.

I'd say that the qualification "pretty much a non-starter" (which btw does leave a very tiny bit of wiggling room) would be fairly accurate description of the subject in hand.

Seems like the decompression inside the aircraft was rapid but not as quick as I think folks are imagining. If the window is the only breach of the pressure vessel, some pressure is going to be retained for some time, smoothing the decompression. Heck, the window is smaller than the outflow valve on several aircraft. This explains how people could be up and moving about helping other passengers, off oxygen, without passing out.

But regardless of whether the cabin altitude never reached 30,000 feet, the person with their head out the window likely was subjected to an atmosphere at a very high altitude, so (along with everything else) it's no surprise that she was unconscious. I assume that the folks working on her gave her oxygen when they got her back in the aircraft?

SumChristianus wrote:

So was depressurization the cause of death, or was it cuts from the window, or the impact of the object which broke through the window, or a combination of the three? A lot happened....
Awful...
Will this elicit a look at seat-belt design?
Perhaps open-rotors will get a setback as well, given the greater danger they pose in a blade failure (no casing to control a failure)?

I don't think anyone knows for sure what may have killed her, I read she died of a heart attack in one report. Hanging outside an airplane at 400 mph. would not help the situation.

SPREE34 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The initial communication is: "Southwest 1380 has an engine fire. Descending." Next, "Yes sir we're single-engine descending have a fire in number 1."

As to the question about airport choice, she originally says, "Give us a vector to your closest," then quickly says, "Philadelphia". So she chose it. And it's a good choice in terms of ARFF, medical, quality nearby hospitals, etc.

The only thing in the ATC/Pilot dialogue I thought was odd is ATC says to go to 11,000 and she confirms, but if it's depressurization aren't you supposed to go to 10,000 or lower? They did end up going that low but shouldn't the pilot have said we depressurized and need a lower altitude?

I fully admit I have no clue how this is handled, so I'm asking for some outside help to explain it to me.

11,000 may have been the lowest safe altitude available at the moment due to lower traffic, or the lowest altitude in the Center's airspace assignable without coordinating with PHL. Even in an emergency, you assign altitudes based on traffic and safety. Does no good to clear an already emergency aircraft into someone else and double the danger. Others below may have been given turns out of the way as well.

I imagine that's probably the case, especially in that area of the country.

A point of trivia - a pilot really only needs to go to around 15,000 feet in order to avoid hypoxia. There's several cities in China that are around 15,000, and La Paz, Bolivia is around 12,000. The usual decent to 10,000 is more about getting an extra margin of safety and relative comfort.

estorilm wrote:

RogerMurdock wrote:

estorilm wrote:

She did a great job, but from what I understand - post shut-down the aircraft was in a normal state (minus depressurization of course).

Far from a "normal state"- the damage and debris causes unpredictable drag patterns over the wing and there could be other unknown damage to control surfaces. I'm not sure that a sim even attempts to model that. Landed with Flaps 5 and at higher speed due to possible controllability concerns in normal approach config.

The drag patterns weren't "over the wing" unless you're talking about turbulence caused by the missing cowl, which would be the only drag I'd imagine vs. a "normal" engine out approach.

Looks like full slats and flaps were available (slats a little banged up) why do you say flaps 5? Is this verified? She made no mention of a fast approach/landing to ATC, no brake issues, etc.

Not taking anything away from the pilot at all, again she did an amazing job - just talking about the state of the aircraft from a systems perspective.

You saying "not sure a sim can even model that" makes it sound like there's asymmetrical flap/slat deployment, loss of half hydraulics, limited control authority, weight/balance issues, etc. If you read the actual report on the damage to QF32 you'll realize the definition of an "abnormal state" haha.

The NTSB video says the captain selected a flaps 5 landing, rather than the normal 30 or 40 degrees, due to controllability concerns.

SEPilot wrote:

Uncontained failures are extremely rare, but they do happen. I have read that one passenger died, but it is not certain that it was the one sucked out the window. When you consider how many jet engines are flying and how much stress that they endure it is amazing that they are as reliable as they are.

As an turbine engine performance and maintenance engineer, this does not look like an uncontained failure. The fan case still looks intact, meaning that all high energy shrapnel was contained within the fain case.
Further, the failed window is NOT in line with the fan area.

It appears that the unbalance of the fan assembly caused inlet ducting and cowling to liberate. Which blew away and probably hit the window on its way back, causing the window to fail.
It is (theoretically) possible that fan blade debris hit the window. However since the window is not in the fan plane, there could not have been much rotational energy left in the blade when it left the fan case. In turbine engine world, that than no longer qualifies as "uncontained".

Mind you, this accident may very well change how the aerospace world, and turbine engineers and regulators in particular, consider and define contained/uncontained failures.
I would not be surprised if certification standard will be introduced taking structural integrity of inlet ducting and cowlings into consideration with respect to unbalance after blade failure (fan, compressor, turbine), which is not the case today.

uta999 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

RogerMurdock wrote:

Far from a "normal state"- the damage and debris causes unpredictable drag patterns over the wing and there could be other unknown damage to control surfaces. I'm not sure that a sim even attempts to model that. Landed with Flaps 5 and at higher speed due to possible controllability concerns in normal approach config.

The drag patterns weren't "over the wing" unless you're talking about turbulence caused by the missing cowl, which would be the only drag I'd imagine vs. a "normal" engine out approach.

Looks like full slats and flaps were available (slats a little banged up) why do you say flaps 5? Is this verified? She made no mention of a fast approach/landing to ATC, no brake issues, etc.

Not taking anything away from the pilot at all, again she did an amazing job - just talking about the state of the aircraft from a systems perspective.

You saying "not sure a sim can even model that" makes it sound like there's asymmetrical flap/slat deployment, loss of half hydraulics, limited control authority, weight/balance issues, etc. If you read the actual report on the damage to QF32 you'll realize the definition of an "abnormal state" haha.

The NTSB video says the captain selected a flaps 5 landing, rather than the normal 30 or 40 degrees, due to controllability concerns.

There was some discussion upthread of the decision to go to PHL rather than ABE or MDT, but going to PHL gained her 2,000 feet of runway over MDT and 4,400 over ABE. I'm not sure there even is a published chart for landing distances for a Flaps 5 73G, but I would guess the best case is something on the order of 6,000-8,000 feet.

In the Pensacola SWA engine failure there was a large gash in the fuselage that breached the aircraft skin. It contacted the fuselage just below the row of windows and at the place were there is the missing window on the 737. Giving the randomness of the cowl seperation in a failure like this the fact that the window was blown out on the PHL flight and PNS stayed intact was purely luck.

Waterbomber wrote:

One has to start to wonder whether certification tests replicate reality.
If a fan blade breaks off and is caught between the fan casing and is then hit around by other fan blades, eventually it would have to exit that space from somewhere.

What use is there in putting a strong fan case if it will be ejected in another way?

I'm sure the certification tests try to replicate reality and to cover as many possibilities as feasible. Perhaps there will be changes to tests in the future and/or additional maintenance actions to check higher cycle engines in the future leading to an incremental safety increase?

planecane wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Hmmm.

The 1st compressor stage of the engine still delivers fresh air from the outside to pressurize the cabin. Would it be possible to switch off that air supply presto to stop air rushing out a broken window?


David

Ummm...

The compressed air is already in the fuselage. That's what rushes out, not the new air being supplied.

Like a balloon being popped.

legend500 wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

The only thing in the ATC/Pilot dialogue I thought was odd is ATC says to go to 11,000 and she confirms, but if it's depressurization aren't you supposed to go to 10,000 or lower? They did end up going that low but shouldn't the pilot have said we depressurized and need a lower altitude?

I fully admit I have no clue how this is handled, so I'm asking for some outside help to explain it to me.

11,000 may have been the lowest safe altitude available at the moment due to lower traffic, or the lowest altitude in the Center's airspace assignable without coordinating with PHL. Even in an emergency, you assign altitudes based on traffic and safety. Does no good to clear an already emergency aircraft into someone else and double the danger. Others below may have been given turns out of the way as well.

I imagine that's probably the case, especially in that area of the country.

A point of trivia - a pilot really only needs to go to around 15,000 feet in order to avoid hypoxia. There's several cities in China that are around 15,000, and La Paz, Bolivia is around 12,000. The usual decent to 10,000 is more about getting an extra margin of safety and relative comfort.

Thanks for the info from you both. That all makes sense.


Separate question. I see a WN plane was taken out of service at BNA today for a bird strike. How many extra planes/slack does WN have to fill routes when planes go down? I figure they have more than others since they have all the same fleet (not counting 143/175 passenger difference in models) but I imagine they don't just have a bunch of extras sitting around either.

What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?

uta999 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

RogerMurdock wrote:

Far from a "normal state"- the damage and debris causes unpredictable drag patterns over the wing and there could be other unknown damage to control surfaces. I'm not sure that a sim even attempts to model that. Landed with Flaps 5 and at higher speed due to possible controllability concerns in normal approach config.

The drag patterns weren't "over the wing" unless you're talking about turbulence caused by the missing cowl, which would be the only drag I'd imagine vs. a "normal" engine out approach.

Looks like full slats and flaps were available (slats a little banged up) why do you say flaps 5? Is this verified? She made no mention of a fast approach/landing to ATC, no brake issues, etc.

Not taking anything away from the pilot at all, again she did an amazing job - just talking about the state of the aircraft from a systems perspective.

You saying "not sure a sim can even model that" makes it sound like there's asymmetrical flap/slat deployment, loss of half hydraulics, limited control authority, weight/balance issues, etc. If you read the actual report on the damage to QF32 you'll realize the definition of an "abnormal state" haha.

The NTSB video says the captain selected a flaps 5 landing, rather than the normal 30 or 40 degrees, due to controllability concerns.

Ah thanks, I suppose if I'm PF and I know there's been an explosive decompression, you might have images of that united cargo door mishap or aloha floating around your head.

I'm actually a little surprised that it stopped at the window, at that altitude, and AC was 18 years old. I guess the Somalia A320 did a good job too, especially considering it was a bomb, but much lower altitude IIRC.

legend500 wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

The only thing in the ATC/Pilot dialogue I thought was odd is ATC says to go to 11,000 and she confirms, but if it's depressurization aren't you supposed to go to 10,000 or lower? They did end up going that low but shouldn't the pilot have said we depressurized and need a lower altitude?

I fully admit I have no clue how this is handled, so I'm asking for some outside help to explain it to me.

11,000 may have been the lowest safe altitude available at the moment due to lower traffic, or the lowest altitude in the Center's airspace assignable without coordinating with PHL. Even in an emergency, you assign altitudes based on traffic and safety. Does no good to clear an already emergency aircraft into someone else and double the danger. Others below may have been given turns out of the way as well.

I imagine that's probably the case, especially in that area of the country.

A point of trivia - a pilot really only needs to go to around 15,000 feet in order to avoid hypoxia. There's several cities in China that are around 15,000, and La Paz, Bolivia is around 12,000. The usual decent to 10,000 is more about getting an extra margin of safety and relative comfort.

Makes sense. I've been over 11,000 ft skiing and never even notice the difference between that and the mountain base 2500+ feet lower.

Bavd wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Engines are designed to contain a single fan blade failure. In fact engines must demonstrate containment of single fan blade failure before they can be certified for flight.

In this event it didn't contain it.

When looking at the picture in post #276 it seems like the titanium containment ring is perfectly intact. The failed fan blade has only broken the carbon honeycomb structure of the nacelle in front of the fan disk.

Is the containment ring not wide enough on the CFM56-7B?

This accident seems to have the potential to force a major modification or rebuilding of 737NG nacelles. That is if the investigation concludes that ordinary certification criteria were not met.

I totally agree, it seems strange that one fan blade departing the disk can cause this amount of damage. That should not happen, unless there is something else going on here.

I've wondered how often fan blades fail during the cruise phase. I'd imagine it being more common during takeoffs when the blades experience the greatest stresses.

heyjoojoo wrote:

What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?

Someone may have asked this before....if so I apologize.

Could a fix for this be that heavy duty ballistic glass be used on the closest 3-4 windows to the engines? Glass can be engineered to withstand almost anything, but I’m sure there are practical thickness and weight considerations to be had.

HeyHey wrote:

heyjoojoo wrote:

What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?

Someone may have asked this before....if so I apologize.

Could a fix for this be that heavy duty ballistic glass be used on the closest 3-4 windows to the engines? Glass can be engineered to withstand almost anything, but I’m sure there are practical thickness and weight considerations to be had.

Unfortunately, there has to be some level of acceptable risk. The cost and weight penalty to save one person in a freak, unlucky situation will be too high. I don't think the at risk windows can be specified other than in line with and behind the engine. Therefore at least half the windows would need to be fortified.

Money and effort much better spent on keeping engines from exploding and containing dangerous shrapnel if it happens.

HeyHey wrote:

heyjoojoo wrote:

What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?

Someone may have asked this before....if so I apologize.

Could a fix for this be that heavy duty ballistic glass be used on the closest 3-4 windows to the engines? Glass can be engineered to withstand almost anything, but I’m sure there are practical thickness and weight considerations to be had.

Sounds like cockpit glass.

But I'd reiterate, to me, it doesn't sound like shrapnel piercing the glass was the main problem as opposed to ancillary damage to the window (which includes the aluminum frame) caused the air INSIDE the cabin to pop it out.

HeyHey wrote:

heyjoojoo wrote:

What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?

Someone may have asked this before....if so I apologize.

Could a fix for this be that heavy duty ballistic glass be used on the closest 3-4 windows to the engines? Glass can be engineered to withstand almost anything, but I’m sure there are practical thickness and weight considerations to be had.

Problem is, FOD could just as easily penetrate weaker aluminum structure next / around the window and result in a similar outcome. Hit somethingtought and the whole structure would deform inwards.

The problem is that the forces at play in an uncontained failure are so extreme that, while technically possible to contain a disk failure for example, it is just not economical due to the extreme weight.

Ugh, this really tugs at me. That poor woman, and her poor family. Just horrible, downright horrible.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/one-southwest-passenger-dead-others-injured-after-boeing-737-engine-blowout/

Dominic provides a good summary of what is currently known about this crash, as well as historical background information.

ps - it is entirely realistic to expect most media and news sources to have the sort of background and expertise to do these stories. All of the media have been forced to layoff tons of reporters.

Not to nitpick, but now I'll nitpick: it's not a "crash." I only point this out because your comment came in the context of media accuracy in reporting on aviation.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... e-blowout/

Dominic provides a good summary of what is currently known about this crash, as well as historical background information.

ps - it is entirely realistic to expect most media and news sources to have the sort of background and expertise to do these stories. All of the media have been forced to layoff tons of reporters.

heyjoojoo wrote:

What are the odds of a piece of shrapnel being expelled in your direction into a small 10x14 opening?

Given that the window was not in line with the fan disk, I don't expect it was shrapnel. If it was, it certainly did not have any significant level of kinetic energy left (which basically is defining characteristic of shrapnel in this sense). High energy shrapnel would have hit the window in the fan plane. Not 7 - 8 windows further aft.

planecane wrote:

legend500 wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

11,000 may have been the lowest safe altitude available at the moment due to lower traffic, or the lowest altitude in the Center's airspace assignable without coordinating with PHL. Even in an emergency, you assign altitudes based on traffic and safety. Does no good to clear an already emergency aircraft into someone else and double the danger. Others below may have been given turns out of the way as well.

I imagine that's probably the case, especially in that area of the country.

A point of trivia - a pilot really only needs to go to around 15,000 feet in order to avoid hypoxia. There's several cities in China that are around 15,000, and La Paz, Bolivia is around 12,000. The usual decent to 10,000 is more about getting an extra margin of safety and relative comfort.

Makes sense. I've been over 11,000 ft skiing and never even notice the difference between that and the mountain base 2500+ feet lower.

Agree. I regularly ski above 11,500 to about 13,000. I don't notice a difference in that and 10,000 feet.

Besides FAA regs require pilots use oxygen if flying above 12,500 ft for 30 minutes or more, and immediately if flying at 14,000 feet or more. So presumably an emergency decent to 12,500 feet or less would be perfectly acceptable.

allegiantflyer wrote:

So tragic. I can only imagine the horror

phljjs wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

WN is currently sending a ferry flight DAL-PHL operated by N229WN.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/WN8870

Possibly with employees on board to help out on-site?

The flight has WN Executives and a WN "GO Team."

what exactly is a "go team" and what purpose do they serve for a situation like this?

I'm sure it varies airline to airline... But executives, engineers/maintenance personnel to assist with the investigation, PR people, airline attorneys as well.

Early accident statements said that the deceased passenger was removed from the plane via the window. Later reports said that an RN performed CPR on her, which would indicate that at least at that point the woman was completely inside the plane. Have we now discredited the original report? It would make no sense to put her back in the window if she had already been removed from it

Edit add: I just heard an ABC News report that said that the woman was sucked thru the window to her waist, and likely died instantly from the initial impact.

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

dmtroyer wrote:

"My SW flight from NYC to DAL just blew an engine and the window blew out mid flight. I just saw a human being fly out of a plane 40,000 feet above. I’ve never been more terrified in my life"

https://twitter.com/cassface321/status/ ... 9976086530

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.

You may want to follow your own advice and not post until you get the story, this report, from someone who was actually on the plane, gave an accurate description of what happened.

One thing nobody can deny, the crew performed amazing. I just cant imagine the fear for those passengers!! As for the 40,000 foot post? Does it really matter? That situation was dire, and terrifying. Alot of those passengers will require counseling.

I just hope that the passenger who lost her life didn't suffer. I just couldn't imagine the pain the family is feeling right now. My deepest condolences. I also want to send my thoughts to the Southwest employees. Lots of Luv to you guys and gals.