Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event

Old 18th Apr 2018, 17:29
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 58
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post




No there isn't.

Maybe it's a case of terminology but as understand it the partial pressure of oxygen (measured as a percentage) is the same at altitude as at sea level, but the actual amount of oxygen (as in molecules per unit volume/breath taken) is less at altitude.......
"as in molecules per unit"

Correct!
climber314 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 17:38
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,428
No, Wiggy, the partial pressure is the problem as well as less total oxygen.
Hi gums, like you having been through the joys of military aviation med training (British version), altitude chamber runs and (before my civvie days) used hoses attached to the likes of the F-4 through to the (mighty, noisy but unpressurised) Jet Provost Mk 3 I know that partial pressure of O2 becomes an issue, but I would certainly still take issue with the claim in the statement that kicked off this bit of the debate that the “amount” of oxygen is unchanged at altitude...

Anyhow above all this is a distraction from the body of the thread and I need to add my chapeau” to the crew in the SWA flight.

Rgds

Wiggy
wiggy is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 17:45
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by Highway1 View Post
You are making the assumption that the fan bade wasn't contained - no evidence to support that so far.
Was only a question re. certification.
pax2908 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 17:50
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by pax2908 View Post
Was only a question re certification.
What part of

Originally Posted by pax2908 View Post
here it looks like it was not [contained]...
have we misunderstood ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 17:50
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,122
Originally Posted by J-Class View Post
A user on AVHerald posted a question which merits an answer from the pilots here:



It must be true that if this accident had begun on the ground, there could not have been injuries from cabin decompression.

Is there any merit in the argument that stressing engines to the max on the ground from time to time would be a good idea?
When operating flex takeoffs, there's a requirement to assure that max thrust is still available on the engine when(if) required. Traditionally that was done via requiring a full power (non flex) takeoff periodically (100 flights). Today, operators can also use trend monitoring programmes to keep an eye on engine wear and react before they would have failed the full piower check.

All of this however is intended to check that you can get full rated thrust without breaching ITT limits (the normal problemthat occurs first on a "worn" engine is failing to be able to do so); it was never seen as a check on fatigue life remaining. So by that logic, using trend monitoring in lieu of the full power check is entirely reasonable.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 17:54
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
hoss183, your pretty picture of two blokes with white moustaches. The manufacturer only 'certifies' those to 18000ft, which is just a bit different to 30000+ft.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:08
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 562
Blade Stroking.

How many of todays 73', e-jet and small 'bus drivers get into the cowling and stroke every one of the blades on each engine on the leading edge to check for new FOD nicks?

Maybe that's how I got my posting name and got laughed at by the rest of my colleagues but once the daily servicing has been signed off by base engineer, then flight crew are the only ones to supposedly check for potential crack initiators on subsequent sectors.

Oh, and before the flak starts flying, I ensured I didn't leave any little bits of FOD in the intake area.

But I am forgetting, it wasn't taught by the airline's training department, just a hangover from associating with those wonderful flight engineer chappies...

I must get out more often. Tin hat donned and await incoming......
BARKINGMAD is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:09
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 3
Having listened to the audio a couple of time now I'd like to add
1. My condolences to the family of the deceased PAX
2. My congratulations to the crew for a professional job, without panic, in getting the plane to the ground without further incident
3. My congratulations to the ATC staff whose "you tell me what you want and I'll clear it" attitude is a welcome breath of fresh air showing what common sense professionalism can achieve when it's needed
golfbananajam is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:13
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: XFW, Germany
Posts: 119
VASAviation made a multi-channel ATC recording, including subtitles and radar overlay. Very professional handling in the cockpit, I think, as a PAX.

PAXfips is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:20
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 464
Post #191 Barking . . . absolutely agreed.

No incoming from this direction . . . what a tragedy. That's one engine you CAN actually see, however when it's raining all of us have been guilty of a cursory look on occasion . . .

Before ANYBODY infers I'm criticising the crew . . . THINK AGAIN. No such inference, they did really well.

Last edited by Brian W May; 18th Apr 2018 at 18:21. Reason: Afterthought
Brian W May is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:27
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
Props to the Captain and FD crew for such a high level of professionalism.
Props and thoughts as well to the CC for working to resuscitate a gravely injured passenger, must have been horrific.
Props to the passengers who ignored their own safety to bring the passenger back onboard and block the hole.

A lot of very fine performances on this day, so sad that a life was lost.
Smott999 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:48
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by silverstrata View Post
With the SW 3472 incident in 2016, plus the SW 438 incident in 2007, and now this, I think the focus of attention needs to be as much on the cowl as the blade. In two (perhaps all three) cases the root of an N1 fan-blade failed (due to fatigue on the 2016 incident) and the blade separated.

But in all three cases the blade appears to have missed the containment ring and struck the cowl instead, causing a complete failure of the cowl, and all the attendant risks with all that material flying off into the slipstream. If you look at the N1 containment ring on the recent incident, it appears to be untouched all the way around. But the cowl took the full force of the departing blade, and disintegrated.

The N1 blade is under considerable aerodynamic forward pressure in flight, and will naturally spring forwards when released. But in static testing for cerification the blade still seems to hit the containment ring. Yet here it appears that the blade moved forward enough to miss the containment ring, and strike the cowl. Perhaps an engineer on this board might suggest why that might be. Why would the forward speed of the aircraft have any effect on the trajectory of the departing blade?

ST
Just for general understanding .. the released blade loses significant aero forces such as lift as soon as it is released. Given that it now contacts the engine casing within milliseconds the forces acting on the blade tip are friction against tangential inertia. Like a downhill skier the blade tip follows the line of lowest friction which skate it forward of the plane of rotation.

I was struck by the excellent quality of the referenced NTSB Walk-around video and the observation that the engine itself closely matched the manufacturer's successfully certified blade out test.

The secondary events immediately following the loss of the blade now become of primary importance to resolve.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:59
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 482
lomapaseo nailed it

>>> Like a downhill skier the blade tip follows the line of lowest friction which skate it forward of the plane of rotation.

Yes, exactly. Perfect analogy succinctly explaining the physics.

>>> The secondary events immediately following the loss of the blade now become of primary importance to resolve.

Yup. Given the possible consequences, it appears that better containment of an FBO is required forward of the containment ring.

Also, another chapeau to the crew, ATC and the pax who immediately stepped forward to assist. Cool, collected and competent, across the board. Gold stars to everyone.
OldnGrounded is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 19:08
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
lomapaseo. Always a reliable source of engine data, I’d be interested in a description of the actual path of number thirteen such that a ‘minds eye’ picture could occur?

As in, with a spiral track through space whilst attached to the rotor, how long could this radial trajectory sustain after root failure? The cowl looks “scrubbed clean” at the containment ring forward. Did the blade complete at least one revolution post release with energy enough to remove all the “crumple cowling”?
Concours77 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 19:12
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: CYUL
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD View Post
How many of todays 73', e-jet and small 'bus drivers get into the cowling and stroke every one of the blades on each engine on the leading edge to check for new FOD nicks?
Well I used to. Except on the 767, if it was parked with a strong tailwind, and fan turning over at high speed !
Once we had a 319 (CFM) that had landed with previous crew in icing conditions. I asked my F/O, doing the walkaround to check the fan blades for ice buildup, after inbound crew taxied to gate.
He found 1/8 inch of ice on back of the N1 blades ! Maintenance had to bring in a ground heater to melt ice off fan blades, before engine start.
Retired DC9 driver is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 19:33
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by A0283 View Post
Was the initial NTSB walkaround already posted?
Post #109.

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
NTSB walkround video:
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 19:57
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 385
Originally Posted by Lost in Saigon View Post
I assume the un-named male First Officer was the Pilot Flying during the descent and initial approach, while Captain Tammie Jo Shults ran the checklist and the radio. (except when the FO responded to ATC clearing SWA1380 direct to Philadelphia)

On final, when they switched to the tower frequency, Captain Shults took over flying while the First Officer worked the radio.
(after landing the Captain went on the radio again)
Other way around - The PF would be working the radios, and the FO would be running the checklist. If the FO answered a radio call it may indicate that the CA was communicating with the FAs or making a PA. On approach the roles may return to normal, with the majority of checklists complete.

Obviously, it’s the CA perogative if she wants to run the checklist/manage.
JPJP is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 20:26
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MA, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by hoss183 View Post
I doubt it. If the pax was in line with the axis of the fan there would have been a high energy penetration. Being that the failed window was behind the wing, its likely that it was an unlucky strike of some debris falling rearwards.
The report is she was out of the window up to her waist, and the injury likely occurred flailing in the slipstream against the fuselage.
Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ys_Flight_5390 ?
Yancey Slide is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 20:34
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
What part of

"looks like it was not"

have we misunderstood ?
I don't know for sure.

However somebody earlier wrote "Fan blade 13 missing at hub with evidence of metal fatigue".
This seems to indicate (at least as a possibility) the root cause of this event was a fan blade broken.
After this, whether the blade itself remained "contained" but something else was triggered (some other piece went off as a result) which in turn caused cabin damage etc, in my opinion is immaterial.

I stand to be corrected!
pax2908 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 20:34
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post
Other way around - The PF would be working the radios, and the FO would be running the checklist. If the FO answered a radio call it may indicate that the CA was communicating with the FAs or making a PA. On approach the roles may return to normal, with the majority of checklists complete.

Obviously, itís the CA perogative if she wants to run the checklist/manage.
The Captain was working the radios before they lost the engine. I guess she may have taken control and let the FO run the checklist. We'll have to wait for the CVR transcripts to know for sure.
Lost in Saigon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.