Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southwest 737-300 Emergency Landing After Fuselage Tears Open

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

  • #31
    Isn't explosive decompression reason enough to always suspect structural failure?
    Sure is. However the checklist is not only for an explosive decompression, it is actually for any time the cabin altitude is too high, which is why the situation is specifically addressed.

    Would I be using a 45 degree AoB turn? Absolutely not. Why? Because I want the autopilot engaged. The Boeing depressurisation checklist does not talk about turning off an airway - it is only mentioned in the manoeuvres section, with an "if required". If you're on a very busy airway, and you know there is traffic around, then you would be turning before/as you are descending... its about getting down to your altitude safely. If there is no traffic you know of, then I would be descending straight ahead, and once established in the descent, consider the turn. You still have TCAS, and ATC will attempt to get people out of your way where possible.

    Rapid descents are never performed "that" quickly that you need to be pushing 0g over the top, or rolling rediculous attitudes to get down quicker. Yes, they may save a second or two... but it is far more important to keep the autopilot engaged and conduct a controlled manoeuvre.

    Comment


    • #32
      A Corvette stock is capable of 1.0 and a "Z" even more.

      Do you want to be standing during that kind of maneuver? Galley service?
      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
        If I recall from a previous discussion on metal fatigue, inspections are not the ideal solution in preventing problems on an aging fleet. While the technology for detecting fatigue at the molecular level is improving, it still tends to be the case that you detect nothing, you detect nothing, you detect nothing... then bam, a crack, unless you are undertaking costly and time-consuming procedures.
        That may well be true of some cases, but apparently not in this one. A competent inspection would have revealed the issue, but a competent inspection is not required, and therefore there is no reason to expect the airlines to conduct one.

        Originally posted by BBC
        Investigators said the rip began where two outer panels were riveted together, and that the area around it showed evidence of pre-existing cracking due to fatigue.

        "We did find evidence of widespread cracking across this entire fracture surface," National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt told reporters.

        Comment


        • #34
          Visual? That is something I'm not sure of.

          Aluminum reverts to crystals and that may happen prior to crack being formed along the rivets.

          They also mentioned this was a flash patch. If I remember correctly that would mean it overlapped from the rear?
          Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            That may well be true of some cases, but apparently not in this one. A competent inspection would have revealed the issue, but a competent inspection is not required, and therefore there is no reason to expect the airlines to conduct one.
            I guess what I'm understanding, though, is that a competent inspection will reveal cracks. It will not reveal the pre-existing state of metal fatigue prior to the cracks manifesting themselves. In fact, I think Southwest has already found other aircraft with fatigue cracks in them in the past 24 hours. The thing is, what do you do when you discover cracks? You fix them. That is what Southwest did when it previously discovered fatigue cracks on this aircraft. The problem is, if these planes are developing cracks prematurely (relative to their anticipated life expectancy), then it won't matter how much you look for cracks, the next crack may occur at 30,000 feet without any known pre-condition. The underlying issue is whether or not these 737's are as airworthy as it has been believed. By simply going after the inspection process, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

            Comment


            • #36
              YUMA, Ariz. – Inspectors have found small, subsurface cracks in three more Southwest Airlines planes that are similar to those suspected of causing a jetliner to lose pressure and make a harrowing emergency landing in Arizona, a federal investigator said Sunday.

              Southwest said in statement that two of its Boeing 737-300s had cracks and will be evaluated and repaired before they are returned to service. A National Transportation Safety Board member told The Associated Press later Sunday that a third plane had been found with cracks developing.

              The cracks found in the three planes developed in two lines of riveted joints that run the length of the aircraft.

              Nineteen other Boeing 737-300 planes inspected using a special test developed by the manufacturer showed no problems and will be returned to service. Checks on nearly 60 other jets are expected to be completed by late Tuesday, the airline said.

              Comment


              • #37
                When you see the Government taking pieces of evidences like this, you can expect always the worst....if I were a Southwest's mechanic I would be shaking and worry by now...
                A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re:

                  Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                  When you see the Government taking pieces of evidences like this, you can expect always the worst....if I were a Southwest's mechanic I would be shaking and worry by now...
                  They're NTSB investigators, they're doing the job they were hired to do.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                    I guess what I'm understanding, though, is that a competent inspection will reveal cracks. It will not reveal the pre-existing state of metal fatigue prior to the cracks manifesting themselves. In fact, I think Southwest has already found other aircraft with fatigue cracks in them in the past 24 hours. The thing is, what do you do when you discover cracks? You fix them. That is what Southwest did when it previously discovered fatigue cracks on this aircraft. The problem is, if these planes are developing cracks prematurely (relative to their anticipated life expectancy), then it won't matter how much you look for cracks, the next crack may occur at 30,000 feet without any known pre-condition. The underlying issue is whether or not these 737's are as airworthy as it has been believed. By simply going after the inspection process, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
                    FOF, you are missing the issue. It's not simply a matter of detection in this case, it's a matter of lack of inspection altogether. This aircraft went through D-check one year ago, and yes, cracks were found and repaired in the places where inspections were carried out. The area of the fuselage that failed here was never inspected for metal fatigue. Why...?

                    Originally posted by ABC News
                    Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor Boeing requires an intensive inspection to check for fatigue cracks on the section of passenger jet that tore open Friday.
                    It is a matter of short-sightedness, a lesson you would think by now the manufacturers and the regulators would have learned. But oh, no...

                    After the incident Friday, the revelation calls into question the inspection program for aging U.S. aircraft.
                    "Calls into question"... is that hilarious or what?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      FOF, you are missing the issue. It's not simply a matter of detection in this case, it's a matter of lack of inspection altogether. This aircraft went through D-check one year ago, and yes, cracks were found and repaired in the places where inspections were carried out. The area of the fuselage that failed here was never inspected for metal fatigue. Why...?



                      It is a matter of short-sightedness, a lesson you would think by now the manufacturers and the regulators would have learned. But oh, no...



                      "Calls into question"... is that hilarious or what?
                      I absolutely will grant you that this incident may bring to light the need for a more robust inspection program among the airlines using these 737-300's and other aging jets. But this has more to do with the regulations, and with aircraft that maybe (?) lack the endurance that was expected of them, not specific to Southwest, which is where you led the initial charge. Also, I don't think I've missed the point. It's difficult to inspect "for metal fatigue". One can only inspect for the cracks caused by metal fatigue (without a more thorough analysis). So now with four jets identified as having such cracks, do you feel confident that the next time you step onto a 15-year-old 737, that your plane won't be the next one to develop a crack, perhaps in worse circumstances than what we've seen up to now? Will you feel confident that, "Lucky for you, they discovered some cracks on this plane last month and patched them all up." Um, what about last week? What about yesterday? How often and how thoroughly will these planes need to be inspected for passengers to feel safe? Instead, it may be appropriate to retire these jets - or renew their skins - sooner rather than later.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                        I absolutely will grant you that this incident may bring to light the need for a more robust inspection program among the airlines using these 737-300's and other aging jets. But this has more to do with the regulations, and with aircraft that maybe (?) lack the endurance that was expected of them, not specific to Southwest, which is where you led the initial charge. Also, I don't think I've missed the point. It's difficult to inspect "for metal fatigue". One can only inspect for the cracks caused by metal fatigue (without a more thorough analysis). So now with four jets identified as having such cracks, do you feel confident that the next time you step onto a 15-year-old 737, that your plane won't be the next one to develop a crack, perhaps in worse circumstances than what we've seen up to now? Will you feel confident that, "Lucky for you, they discovered some cracks on this plane last month and patched them all up." Um, what about last week? What about yesterday? How often and how thoroughly will these planes need to be inspected for passengers to feel safe? Instead, it may be appropriate to retire these jets - or renew their skins - sooner rather than later.
                        I completely agree with you that this is an FAA issue, not specific to Southwest. I put Southwest on my no-fly list because they operate too many older, high-cycle 737s for my liking, AND obviously do not seem to take any special initiative to carry out inspections above and beyond FAA requirements. You would think, after the other recent pop, they would have taken that initiative. From the reports I am reading, an proper inspection of the area at D-check would have revealed visible cracks indicative of fatigue.

                        But, whenever possible, I avoid flying on "classic" 737's or anything MD-80ish, because I don't trust the FAA to enforce comprehensive inspections of high-cycle aircraft, and I don't trust low-cost operators to take inspection initiatives. When I fly, I like to feel safe in my skin, so to speak.

                        It's a real shame, because, with proper inspection and maintenance, a classic 737 should be a safe and dependable aircraft well beyond 15 years of service life. It's a shame because the FAA is so bereft of vision and integrity...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          For me and many others, Southwest is the only option that's also the cheapest. Want to fly from OKC to AUS? Either American (with M80s), or COXp, or WN. No way I'm paying basically the same fare as WN charges, and then on top paying a bag check fee. I am confident though that WN will learn from this latest incident and check not only its -300s but also the -500s (at least it should check those too).

                          With all the money invested in RNP retrofits, the -300s are probably not going anywhere for a while. I seem to recall though that the -500s were to be retired at some point.

                          As serious as the incident was, here's a thought: US Airways operates both -300s and -400s, and stated that it won't be checking them for such cracks. I'd rather fly in the classic 737s of an airline that has had such an incident and is now carefully scrutinizing its planes then an airline which has essentially the same classic 737s with a high number of cycles and says "well, it didn't happen to any of our planes, why should we check them?"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
                            I'd rather fly in the classic 737s of an airline that has had such an incident and is now carefully scrutinizing its planes then an airline which has essentially the same classic 737s with a high number of cycles and says "well, it didn't happen to any of our planes, why should we check them?"
                            I'd rather have the FAA answer that question with, "because they stay on the ground until you check them."

                            No, this is actually a really good point: since the incident we have learned that Southwest has checked the remainder of its fleet and found other ships with cracks in that area. BUT... what about every other operator flying high-cycle 737's? This is a type-specific issue, not an airline-specific issue! Why aren't other operators making these inspections. Or are they? Why does the FAA take such a glacial response to these situations?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I live in Sacramento, the intended destination for this flight. The local TV interviewed a guy who does flight safety training, and he said some things I felt were unduly alarming. Here is the link: http://www.kcra.com/news/27416348/detail.html. I'd like to know from experts if in a real-world scenario such as the one we are talking about, folks really have only 10-12 secs to put on the oxygen. I also like to know whether a controlled emergency descent due to loss of cabin pressure from 35,000 typically involves significant negative g's. This publication: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...ilot_handbook/, chapter 16 indicates 30-60 secs of useful consciousness at 35, 000 ft. I couldn't find anything on the FAA website about regulations concerning emergency descent in the event of loss of cabin pressure.
                              Thanks, Craig

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Isn't explosive decompression reason enough to always suspect structural failure?
                                I started with "Ok, you are right" for something.
                                Perhaps most vomit inducing, but if I were in a plane that suddenly decompressed AND went into an endless 45° roll, I would be plenty scared. I prefer the level wings and high rate of descent.
                                You wouldn't notice, neither the roll nor the rate of decent. It's a continuous 1G maneuver.

                                Now, with the wings level push down, let's not say hard, but with more emphasis than usual so as to get a reasonable sink rate in a reasonably short time, and you'll notice the semi-weightless roller coaster big drop feeling.

                                And, it's not an endless 45º roll. Just until you achieve the desired descent rate, then you roll back to wings level. It would last as much as as the less-than-1G push down, except without the less-than-1G part.

                                Are you certain of this? I would expect ATC to want to know exactly what heading you are on and divert other traffic. Since the doctrine is aviate, navigate, communicate, there may be some delay in getting that information across once you depart from your previous heading.
                                Certain, not. We better wait for a professional airline pilot.
                                But this whole maneuver is what an experienced airline pilot told me.

                                The procedure was something like this (in this order):
                                - Masks on.
                                - 100% O2.
                                - Crew communication, check.
                                - Emergency decent, start.
                                - Declare emergency and advise ATC.

                                Now, when you are going down 5000 fpm (or starting to do so) and there can be another plane flying in heads on just 1000 feet below, you better want to get out of the way.

                                I guess there is a risk in doing this, there could be a plane exactly where you are ascending and turning to. But I guess that the risk is much higher that there's a plane directly below on the same airway you are on. At the same time, I guess the chances that you and the other plane coincide in the same spot at the same time are much higher when both of you are flying the same route than if you make a random turn. Not that I've said "I guess" three times. So don't ask me if I' sure.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X