Questions are made about why the flight didn't declare Mayday. From the recording I heard, it seemed to be just as they switched from one freq to the next (i.e. to laymen like me from enroute to approach?) Either way, it was clear from the very first interaction that the controller knew 1380 was 7700. Not being a pilot, I don't know if 7700 is a switch, button, radio call, or other, but it was clear to me that the controller was making any and all resources available as needed. I agree that there was a lot of "other" traffic on that freq, but I don't know how many they have to operate on. As a firefighter previously, we often had talkaround or "attack" channels we could use specific to that incident. In this case, I think a lot was handled "onl the fly" as pilots listened. IIRC, one of the pilots said sonething along the lines of "we've been listening, we're aware, we understand." Essentially, by having the incident aircraft on the main (approach?) frequency, the controller lessened their load because instructions that were needed were understood. While busy, the controller seemed in charge and ready for any contingency. There did also seem to bee a lot of the hums...or beeps of radio traffic being overridden. When I heard that I immediately flashed back to the Tenerife tragedy. It sickens me to know that in 2018 the same potential issues are occurring.

Tammy Jo Shults is getting a lot of praise, as well she should. So should the first officer, and so should the entire FA crew. WN runs a tight ship. This is going to be a very interesting and insightful NTSB report when the final is released. Make no mistake, as someone mentioned upthread...this incident will (and perhaps already has) have an effect towards the positive regarding future safety.

The CFM56-7B engine is the common thread being touted. Yes, Airbus have CFM56 engines...but they're of the -5XXXX variety. The -7XXXX variety are the ones that have shown similarities in failures. Thats not to say that they are bad engines, or that anyone did anything wrong. It's just saying that there is something that needs to be investigated. In aerospace, everything is tracked. Who knows, this could come down to a defect in a bolt on a press that made the blade for engine 101-112 that sheared or something, creating a blacde that wasn't as hardened as it should have been. All we know is that there were similar failures on very similar engines. It's enough to say, let's take a look before the "third time's a charm."

It's also important to not that they were not in "cruise" phase...they were still climbing. My first thought was 32K feet...at cruise this happened??? They were climbing THROUGH 32K when this occurred, on their way to (i forget the actual they were cleared to) 39K.

The wear of the O2 masks intrigues me though...perhaps the O2 did stink, and once they were below 10K they were told they could lower them? Not sure when the pics were taken. That will definitely be another aspect the NTSB focuses on. God, I would love to be on an NTSB investigation team. Hell, I'd pay just to be in their pocket. What they do is so thorough and comprehensive.

Night.

D L X wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

D L X wrote:

Make the mask not stink, and people will comply.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trav ... on-planes/

The mask is not there to smell like petunias, it there to save your LIFE ! you can always refuse to use it though and suffocate.

Or, apparently, put it over your mouth. 140-some people did just that and lived to tell the tale.

Be glib if you want, but if there is a verifiable reason why people fail to comply, the answer is fixing that reason. You’ll never find success in an emergency situation trying to shame someone into doing it your way. Make compliance the easy way and people will comply.

People are like sheep when it comes to flying. One person does something and you can bet 50 will follow suit no matter what they were told.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

That's what I call an un-contained engine failure. Lets not assume its a MRO specific issue. There are a lot of reasons this could happen.

Every engine has its specific design and performance according to his specification related to A/C application. ie, Cfm56-7 for 737NG have large chord fan blade, not the same design as the -2/DC8, outer shroud, -3 737 Classic , 5B/A320 and 5C/A340 mid span design.. Don’t forget nowadays modern engines use composite fan blade and not necessary Titanium alloy. Investigators have yet to determine which was which, or even if this event was due to a manufacturer’s defect.

As far as why 2 engine depress is usually more critical than 1 engine depress it is 100% because of more fuel burn with both engines.

That being said, this is a very marginal “more” as in a 0-1 % difference. It is probably fair to say that the 2 engine depress and the 1 engine depress are “about the same.”


when I listened to the initial ATC audio, it sounded to me like the Captain didn’t flip the mic switch over to mask. The controller makes a comment about hearing transmissions without audio.

“Mayday Maysay Mayday- SWA XXX Declaring an emergency, engine fire, we are descending...”

That takes to long I can’t fault her for cutting to the chase. If I were to critique so she could eek out the A+ from the A I think she deserves it would be the lack of saying anything about the rapid Depressurization. A run-of-the-mill engine fire/failure diesn’t require the entire altitude block down to 10,000 to be cleared out. A rapid depress. does.

I was just told that this AD doesn’t effect any AS airplanes because AS has zero 30k+ cycle engines flying around. Does this sound right? Maybe they meant that the inspections have already been completed on all AS effected engines? Does this mean that SWA is the only major affected by this AD? I can’t imagine that any of the other majors have reached 30k cycles if AS hasn’t.

mjoelnir wrote:

XT6Wagon wrote:

For the people wondering why the Airlines resisted the inspection schedule that the FAA was proposing, its simple... The FAA had no idea what it was asking. The FAA thought that it would be a small section of the 737s (<70 at WN IIRC), but because the airline doesn't track the blades individually it was over 600 engines that needed testing. The same at UA with the FAA being off by a huge factor.

Most people get upset when they are required to spend massive amounts of money and effort while the government is at the same time telling them to do it right now because its a trivial task.

The FAA should not have listened to the whining of the airlines. Now, after the second accident, those inspections will be made with added cost in a very short time. This accident is directly the result of the airline pushing against the inspections and the FAA not resolute enough to put the pressure on. The FAA is far to cosy with the airlines and USA manufacturers. A good example of cost trumping safety.

My understand is that the FAA has always had a dual and essentially conflicting mission: Promote commercial aviation and regulate and enforce safety. If still true, the mission should probably change. Sort of like expecting your state police to promote high performance cars and also vigorously enforce the spreed limit.

flybucky wrote:

"Philadelphia’s medical examiner says that a woman killed when she was partially blown out of a Southwest Airlines plane died of blunt impact trauma to her head, neck and torso."

So not asphyxiation. Hopefully she was knocked unconscious immediately and didn't suffer at all.

"Sumwalt says that the woman was wearing a seatbelt and sitting next to the window."

https://apnews.com/5dc6f818204c4c299eef8764e826e0ba

I think they want to be careful not to put too many gory details out about the woman's injury. It's kind of like the little boy who was killed at the water park on the huge slide in Kansas City. In that instance the authorities said for many days he died from head and neck injuries when in fact he was decapitated, but that detail didn't come out until many days later. if this woman was squeezed out a window smaller than she could actually fit through and banged around in 500 to 600 mile an hour winds, and then brought back inside, she probably was in extremely bad shape and all they could try was resuscitation. I don't see how she could have not been instantly killed the moment she went partially out. Rest in peace

tcfc424 wrote:

Questions are made about why the flight didn't declare Mayday. ..........

Why? Key the mic and state the situation without delay. Instant results. Perhaps on HF where static or poor reception can be an issue, it might help. These guys were on crystal clear VHF. No need for ruffles and flourishes and bugle blowing.

Was this row 14? Does WN have a row 13?


WN may re-register this plane, but of course every a.netter would know which plane it is. I don't think I could sit in that seat.

Apparently the FAA/NTSB order to inspect fan blades is affecting WN's operations to some extent on Sunday, with cancellation of about 40 flights and delays on 100's of others. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emerg ... li=BBnbfcL

SPREE34 wrote:

tcfc424 wrote:

Questions are made about why the flight didn't declare Mayday. ..........

Why? Key the mic and state the situation without delay. Instant results. Perhaps on HF where static or poor reception can be an issue, it might help. These guys were on crystal clear VHF. No need for ruffles and flourishes and bugle blowing.

Nice way to selectively quote. The additional dots after mean that it was taken out of context, the remainder to that being that according to the recording that I heard, it seemed the incident aircraft had just switched channels, perhaps declaring mayday on a previous channel before the recording began. If you're going to quote me, please at least get the quote right.

the recording I heard (VASaviation on YT) you can clearly hear TWO instances of a keyed mic (with copious warning sounds in background) before the third instance reporting engine fire and descending.

We'll need the CVR transcripts to tell, but it's very likely one of those two instances were a mayday call.

they had a TON of stuff going at them all at once, of course ... pressurization, engine fire, 8 zillion alarms and warnings sounding off ...

It would not at all be surprising if they happened to not get around to switching to the oxygen mask microphone for the radio until the third call.

At the end of the day, the controller realized that something serious was going on, and everybody reacted as trained and treated it as an emergency even if there was no formal on-air declaration.

the rule says AVIATE first. I think everyone would much rather the pilots fly the airplane, then try to figure out how to formally declare a MAYDAY.

Saying the words "Mayday" is, I believe, in no way a violation of rules -- and even if it were, who cares?. With a report of an engine fire and a request to roll the trucks, as well as squawking 7700, it's not like ATC didn't know that this was an emergency aircraft.

Sometimes, we get hung up on the silliest stuff here on A.net.

The controller probably knew before anyone other than the pilots when they started the rapid descent.

THAT is something that will get any controller's immediate attention.

I saw an article today in the LA Times about WN inspecting the CFM56s on its entire fleet, and its plan to complete the inspections by the end of 30 days.

It said something interesting:

"Southwest said it will go beyond the FAA requirement and will inspect all of the roughly 700 Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 model Southwest planes that are installed with CFM56 engines. Only about a dozen planes in the Southwest fleet will not need to be inspected because they don't use CFM engines." [emphasis added]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-e ... story.html

The whole fleet is 737s. They all have CFM engines. Could they be referring to the aircraft with the LEAPs? I guess a reporter wouldn't necessarily understand that CFM makes the LEAP...

litz wrote:

The controller probably knew before anyone other than the pilots when they started the rapid descent.

THAT is something that will get any controller's immediate attention.

Bingo! Nothing more needs to be said at that point "AIRCRAFT IN SERIOUS TROUBLE" has been clearly communicated.

I've listened to all the tapes out there. There is no doubt in my mind that the controller knew something major was wrong and did everything possible to clear the area and the runway. Only later when told that a piece of the aircraft was missing and a person was sucked out (which was not totally correct) did the controller indicate surprise at the potential magnitude of the issue.

Have a great day,

wjcandee wrote:

I saw an article today in the LA Times about WN inspecting the CFM56s on its entire fleet, and its plan to complete the inspections by the end of 30 days.

It said something interesting:

"Southwest said it will go beyond the FAA requirement and will inspect all of the roughly 700 Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 model Southwest planes that are installed with CFM56 engines. Only about a dozen planes in the Southwest fleet will not need to be inspected because they don't use CFM engines." [emphasis added]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-e ... story.html

The whole fleet is 737s. They all have CFM engines. Could they be referring to the aircraft with the LEAPs? I guess a reporter wouldn't necessarily understand that CFM makes the LEAP...

It's pretty clear they're talking about the MAX 8s, and the article appears to have been corrected to clarify "Only about a dozen planes in the Southwest fleet will not need to be inspected because they don't use those types of CFM engines."

RogerMurdock wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

I saw an article today in the LA Times about WN inspecting the CFM56s on its entire fleet, and its plan to complete the inspections by the end of 30 days.

It said something interesting:

"Southwest said it will go beyond the FAA requirement and will inspect all of the roughly 700 Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 model Southwest planes that are installed with CFM56 engines. Only about a dozen planes in the Southwest fleet will not need to be inspected because they don't use CFM engines." [emphasis added]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-e ... story.html

The whole fleet is 737s. They all have CFM engines. Could they be referring to the aircraft with the LEAPs? I guess a reporter wouldn't necessarily understand that CFM makes the LEAP...

It's pretty clear they're talking about the MAX 8s, and the article appears to have been corrected to clarify "Only about a dozen planes in the Southwest fleet will not need to be inspected because they don't use those types of CFM engines."

I had an email exchange with the reporter, who was very nice. He acknowledged the distinction and said that he planned to correct it. Actually, the way he rewrote it (from your description) is excellent.

CO953 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

......
Passenger behaviors are still bad and seem to be getting worse in such events. I don't know how much can be done about them but at the least, Wi-Fi needs to be immediately cut off. Some type of very loud automatic announcement system should be kicking in to tell pax what they should be doing in such events as the F/A's needed at first to secure themselves until the immediate crises passed.

I am intrigued by your statement; it opened up new avenues of thought for me.

My instinct says, "yes," but then "no," and I don't know which is correct. Here's why:

In a 9/11-type hijacking, having had WiFi back then in 2001 could very possibly have saved a lot of lives. It's very believable that some of the passengers on the 2nd plane (which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center), and also the Pentagon and Shanksville flights, could have gotten enough warning to make an all-out rush on the hijackers.

Conversely, in a non-hijacking situation, I strongly agree that passengers have always had a certain instrinsic responsibility to each other (and to the flight crew) to maintain a state of heightened awareness when flying. Due to the extreme physics of flight, being 7 miles up in the air honestly should require from all engaged in this endeavor an "all-hands-on-deck" mentality (though this is a lot to ask from today's increasingly self-absorbed populace). Electronics such as WIFi, earbuds, seat-back screens, etc., have the potential to distract a certain percentage of the passengers (even in an emergency [!]) to the extent that passengers may be slow to follow crew instructions or - more importantly, in my opinion - slow to engage in quick, real-time problem-solving thought with their fellow passengers in an effort to apply maximum crowd-force to whatever needs to be done to address the emergency.

We have more and more and more flying zombies, and so the idea of cutting off WiFi does spark various thoughts.

this article from the WSJ mentions that airlines try to make use of real-time social media feeds from passengers (subscription needed):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-southwe ... 1524586032

The photos, video and tweets also kept the airline better-informed about what was happening, and heightened the need for the airline to quickly respond.

Like most airlines, Southwest has a social-media listening team that fed real-time information to executives as the accident developed. One passenger used the plane’s Wi-Fi to broadcast the emergency live on Facebook . Others posted video and photos from inside the cabin once safely on the ground.

Laurie Barnett, Southwest’s managing director of communications and outreach and one of the authors of the response plan, says that information aided the response.

“A situation like that is sort of the classic fog,” Mr. Kelly says. “It does take a while to make sure we have the facts.”

bbobbo wrote:

The photos, video and tweets also kept the airline better-informed about what was happening, and heightened the need for the airline to quickly respond.

Like most airlines, Southwest has a social-media listening team that fed real-time information to executives as the accident developed. One passenger used the plane’s Wi-Fi to broadcast the emergency live on Facebook . Others posted video and photos from inside the cabin once safely on the ground.

Laurie Barnett, Southwest’s managing director of communications and outreach and one of the authors of the response plan, says that information aided the response.

“A situation like that is sort of the classic fog,” Mr. Kelly says. “It does take a while to make sure we have the facts.”

In other words, Southwest corporate was watching this passenger's live video and was able to glean information from it while it was in the air. The plane wasn't on fire, the passengers were more or less calm, the flight attendants were active doing their jobs, and one person had been gravely injured.

bbobbo wrote:

this article from the WSJ mentions that airlines try to make use of real-time social media feeds from passengers (subscription needed):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-southwe ... 1524586032

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing it. That's smart of the airlines to do that. As I wrote before, I do think that passenger accounts, as unreliable as they are, can still be useful pieces of data as long as you treat them with the proper context. Researchers have found that they can predict the flu 6 weeks earlier by analyzing tweets compared to traditional methods (like hospital reports).

I see the point about cutting off wifi to encourage passengers to pay attention to instructions. But at the same time, I think passengers will be trying to communicate even without wifi. Whether it's writing a letter with a pen, typing notes into their phone/laptop, or using the cell phone signal. So I think cutting off wifi would be a lost cause.

Has anybody heard anything about the fate of the accident aircraft? My guess is it will be a write off since it's so old and the extent of the damage.

rj777 wrote:

Has anybody heard anything about the fate of the accident aircraft? My guess is it will be a write off since it's so old and the extent of the damage.

A friend near PHL posted a couple of photos on Facebook showing it with a "tent" around the forward portion of the fuselage and a spare engine nearby. It was since moved, probably into a hangar, and no longer in view, but it sounds like they are going to repair it.

rj777 wrote:

Has anybody heard anything about the fate of the accident aircraft? My guess is it will be a write off since it's so old and the extent of the damage.

They replace engines all the time. So some leading edge devices, an inlet, window, maybe a pylon and a little sheet metal work and away it goes.

From the pictures there does not appear to be any structural damage.
The plane flew, although with some counter inputs for the drag from the damage for 20 or so minutes before landing.
I am not sure you would find any structural damage to make it non airworthy or cost prohibitive to repair.

Okie

Did they ever find the fan blade that entered the cabin? I remember reading a few days ago that they hadn't.

It's not known if anything actually entered the cabin at all, just that something banged against the fuselage, deforming the area below the window, and causing it to fail (and explosively blow) ...

What that "whatever it was" actually was, we'll have to wait for the NTSB.

My personal guess is, either it's somewhere in Pennsylvania, knifed into the ground, or it's inside the engine.

NDiesel wrote:

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

I am totally amazed that this is the only video that has shown up. With everybody videoing everything in their lives where are the people during this emergency with their phones?

danj555 wrote:

Did they ever find the fan blade that entered the cabin? I remember reading a few days ago that they hadn't.

The fan blade did not enter the cabin.

The root cause of the 17 April accident continues to elude the airline, whose executives expressed surprise at the extent of the damage caused by the crack on blade 13 of the 24-blade powerplant that failed on Southwest flight 1380.

"The loss of a single blade just should not have caused such dramatic impact," says Van de Ven. The release of the blade caused significant damage to the engine's inlet cowl, and investigators believe that the ruptured cowl is likely responsible for the damage to the aircraft's fuselage, wing and stabiliser, says Van de Ven

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-signs-of-fatigue-found-in-ongoing-737-engine-chec-448081/

PW100 wrote:

danj555 wrote:

Did they ever find the fan blade that entered the cabin? I remember reading a few days ago that they hadn't.

The fan blade did not enter the cabin.

The root cause of the 17 April accident continues to elude the airline, whose executives expressed surprise at the extent of the damage caused by the crack on blade 13 of the 24-blade powerplant that failed on Southwest flight 1380.

"The loss of a single blade just should not have caused such dramatic impact," says Van de Ven. The release of the blade caused significant damage to the engine's inlet cowl, and investigators believe that the ruptured cowl is likely responsible for the damage to the aircraft's fuselage, wing and stabiliser, says Van de Ven

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-signs-of-fatigue-found-in-ongoing-737-engine-chec-448081/

what was it that came through the fuselage and killed Mrs. Riordan? I saw nothing specific just "blunt force trauma"

[threeid][/threeid]

Moose135 wrote:

rj777 wrote:

Has anybody heard anything about the fate of the accident aircraft? My guess is it will be a write off since it's so old and the extent of the damage.

A friend near PHL posted a couple of photos on Facebook showing it with a "tent" around the forward portion of the fuselage and a spare engine nearby. It was since moved, probably into a hangar, and no longer in view, but it sounds like they are going to repair it.

To me the most provocative question is when or if we will hear what these inspections are turning up. No "baddie" blades found or a few here and there? In other words were/are there some more Pensacola's and Philadephia's in the incubation stage?

kiowa wrote:

PW100 wrote:

danj555 wrote:

Did they ever find the fan blade that entered the cabin? I remember reading a few days ago that they hadn't.

The fan blade did not enter the cabin.

The root cause of the 17 April accident continues to elude the airline, whose executives expressed surprise at the extent of the damage caused by the crack on blade 13 of the 24-blade powerplant that failed on Southwest flight 1380.

"The loss of a single blade just should not have caused such dramatic impact," says Van de Ven. The release of the blade caused significant damage to the engine's inlet cowl, and investigators believe that the ruptured cowl is likely responsible for the damage to the aircraft's fuselage, wing and stabiliser, says Van de Ven

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-signs-of-fatigue-found-in-ongoing-737-engine-chec-448081/

what was it that came through the fuselage and killed Mrs. Riordan? I saw nothing specific just "blunt force trauma"

The blunt force trauma came about from being partially sucked out the window and then having her head/upper torso slammed against the fuselage by air rushing by at roughly 500mph. That will do a number on your body.

One of the passengers aboard WN 1380, Lilia Chavez, filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines stating that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other personal injuries as a result of the WN 1380 incident. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-over-last-weeks-fatal-engine-explosion-2018-4)

No surprise. Proud to be first? She will probably claim loss of sleep going back a year or two............

... that passenger accounts, as unreliable as they are .... That is much to much an inaccurate generalization. Is there any NTSB data to support it?

sgbroimp wrote:

No surprise. Proud to be first? She will probably claim loss of sleep going back a year or two............

It sucks, but done specifically because this and the other lawsuits will likely become merged into a class action suit based off of this one as it was the first to file. The person who benefits the most from a class action suit, besides the lawyers, is the one who files it.

Where is the aircraft? Still in PHL? Who will do the repair? If the aircraft was close to a D check would SWA move it forward and do it?

jplatts wrote:

One of the passengers aboard WN 1380, Lilia Chavez, filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines stating that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other personal injuries as a result of the WN 1380 incident. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-over-last-weeks-fatal-engine-explosion-2018-4)

That had to be an incredibly traumatic event. Watching a lady die next to you would certainly leave an impact. I suspect there will be many more lawsuits. Most of them will probably be against Southwest. Their stock is taken quite the dive since this fatality.

Okie wrote:

rj777 wrote:

Has anybody heard anything about the fate of the accident aircraft? My guess is it will be a write off since it's so old and the extent of the damage.

They replace engines all the time. So some leading edge devices, an inlet, window, maybe a pylon and a little sheet metal work and away it goes.

From the pictures there does not appear to be any structural damage.
The plane flew, although with some counter inputs for the drag from the damage for 20 or so minutes before landing.
I am not sure you would find any structural damage to make it non airworthy or cost prohibitive to repair.

Okie

Like I said above, they have to also consider the age of the plane, plus with new planes coming in relatively frequently, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets retired.

kiowa wrote:

jplatts wrote:

One of the passengers aboard WN 1380, Lilia Chavez, filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines stating that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other personal injuries as a result of the WN 1380 incident. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-over-last-weeks-fatal-engine-explosion-2018-4)

That had to be an incredibly traumatic event. Watching a lady die next to you would certainly leave an impact. I suspect there will be many more lawsuits. Most of them will probably be against Southwest. Their stock is taken quite the dive since this fatality.

IMHO the only people who have a real standing with a lawsuit against WN is the family of the woman killed, and based on the quick remarks he gave, the husband isn't at that point yet.

kiowa wrote:

jplatts wrote:

One of the passengers aboard WN 1380, Lilia Chavez, filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines stating that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other personal injuries as a result of the WN 1380 incident. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-over-last-weeks-fatal-engine-explosion-2018-4)

..... Their stock is taken quite the dive since this fatality.

Yeah except it actually hasn’t. Their stock is the same price it was the week before the incident and the day following the incident the stock was up 3%. The stock is down from 2018 highs due to guiding to weaker 1Q results in March, a month prior to the incident. The weaker WOW stock performance is due to earnings from WN and AA this week. This incident has had little to no impact to this stock price.

lowfareair wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

No surprise. Proud to be first? She will probably claim loss of sleep going back a year or two............

It sucks, but done specifically because this and the other lawsuits will likely become merged into a class action suit based off of this one as it was the first to file. The person who benefits the most from a class action suit, besides the lawyers, is the one who files it.

Why in the world would there be a class action? The “class” is small (<150 people) and well-defined. Perhaps we’ll see an MDL but class action is unlikely.

Okie wrote:

rj777 wrote:

Has anybody heard anything about the fate of the accident aircraft? My guess is it will be a write off since it's so old and the extent of the damage.

They replace engines all the time. So some leading edge devices, an inlet, window, maybe a pylon and a little sheet metal work and away it goes.

From the pictures there does not appear to be any structural damage.
The plane flew, although with some counter inputs for the drag from the damage for 20 or so minutes before landing.
I am not sure you would find any structural damage to make it non airworthy or cost prohibitive to repair.

Okie

They will probably have Boeing and Insurance Adjusters inspect the aircraft to see if it's worth fixing. The aircraft is probably in a hangar by now. If a repair is warrantd and cost effective they will repair the aircraft according to specs, test fly it, paint it and re-register it with a new tail number.

zrb2 wrote:

Holy cow, that is serious. Hoping the critical person can make a full recovery.

On another note, people think i'm a bit silly because i don't pick seats parallel to the engine. I'm either in the front or in the back, for this rare reason.

Makes sense - but it’s WN: unfortunately you can’t pick your seat ahead of time. So where you sit is virtually “unpredictable”

william wrote:

Where is the aircraft? Still in PHL? Who will do the repair? If the aircraft was close to a D check would SWA move it forward and do it?

I have been told that it had a D check not that long ago so another reason it will be repaired

Unless there was significant structural damage determined that would be too expensive or difficult to repair and assure safety, this bird will be fixed and returned to service. I suspect Boeing engineers will be involved with the decision to repair and actual repair. Some parts that may be needed could come from WFU and scrapped planes after appropriate inspections to hold down costs. The question will be the level of damage to the air frame around the window, although I suspect that it was minimal and repairable.

Yes the aircraft most likely will be repaired and returned to service with a new N Number or registration number just like theSouthwest 737 that overran the runway at Chicago's Midway Airport killing a child in a car the aircraft hit.

Super80Fan wrote:

kiowa wrote:

jplatts wrote:

One of the passengers aboard WN 1380, Lilia Chavez, filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines stating that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other personal injuries as a result of the WN 1380 incident. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-over-last-weeks-fatal-engine-explosion-2018-4)

That had to be an incredibly traumatic event. Watching a lady die next to you would certainly leave an impact. I suspect there will be many more lawsuits. Most of them will probably be against Southwest. Their stock is taken quite the dive since this fatality.

IMHO the only people who have a real standing with a lawsuit against WN is the family of the woman killed, and based on the quick remarks he gave, the husband isn't at that point yet.

Respectfully, you're opinion is wholly incorrect.

The reason the lawsuit was filed quickly is to ensure Southwest and other parties preserve vital data, communications, etc. necessary to determine accident liability at a future date. The complaint will be amended in the future as the full extent of injury becomes clear.

avek00 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

kiowa wrote:

That had to be an incredibly traumatic event. Watching a lady die next to you would certainly leave an impact. I suspect there will be many more lawsuits. Most of them will probably be against Southwest. Their stock is taken quite the dive since this fatality.

IMHO the only people who have a real standing with a lawsuit against WN is the family of the woman killed, and based on the quick remarks he gave, the husband isn't at that point yet.

Respectfully, you're opinion is wholly incorrect.

The reason the lawsuit was filed quickly is to ensure Southwest and other parties preserve vital data, communications, etc. necessary to determine accident liability at a future date. The complaint will be amended in the future as the full extent of injury becomes clear.

WAY too early to determine whether you have any "emotional" injuries, especially permanent. Physical injuries I agree, but give it at least a year for the "emotional" stuff. That's hard to prove and anyone could claim it.

Looks like the aircraft involved is currently in the air headed to the Boeing factory.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N772SW

JAYDOUB wrote:

Looks like the aircraft involved is currently in the air headed to the Boeing factory.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N772SW

Actually it's not exactly headed to the Boeing factory, it's headed to Paine Field where Aviation Technical Services is also located.

http://www.atsmro.com/