SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event
Aerodynamics follows Newtonian principles, even at high Mach numbers.
The story of the pilot who calmly landed the Southwest Airlines flight
‘She has nerves of steel’: The story of the pilot who calmly landed the Southwest Airlines flight
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.e7e5f8314cff
The pilot’s voice was calm yet focused as her plane descended, telling air traffic control she had “149 souls” on board and was carrying 21,000 pounds — or about five hours’ worth — of fuel.
“Southwest 1380, we’re single engine,” said Capt. Tammie Jo Shults, a former fighter pilot with the U.S. Navy. “We have part of the aircraft missing, so we’re going to need to slow down a bit.” She asked for medical personnel to meet her aircraft on the runway. “We’ve got injured passengers.”
“Injured passengers, okay, and is your airplane physically on fire?” asked the air traffic controller, according to audio of the interaction.
“No, it’s not on fire, but part of it’s missing,” Shults said, pausing for a moment. “They said there’s a hole, and, uh, someone went out.”...
...In the midst of the chaos, Shults deftly guided the plane onto the runway, touching down at 190 mph, saving the lives of 148 people aboard and averting a far worse catastrophe...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.e7e5f8314cff
The pilot’s voice was calm yet focused as her plane descended, telling air traffic control she had “149 souls” on board and was carrying 21,000 pounds — or about five hours’ worth — of fuel.
“Southwest 1380, we’re single engine,” said Capt. Tammie Jo Shults, a former fighter pilot with the U.S. Navy. “We have part of the aircraft missing, so we’re going to need to slow down a bit.” She asked for medical personnel to meet her aircraft on the runway. “We’ve got injured passengers.”
“Injured passengers, okay, and is your airplane physically on fire?” asked the air traffic controller, according to audio of the interaction.
“No, it’s not on fire, but part of it’s missing,” Shults said, pausing for a moment. “They said there’s a hole, and, uh, someone went out.”...
...In the midst of the chaos, Shults deftly guided the plane onto the runway, touching down at 190 mph, saving the lives of 148 people aboard and averting a far worse catastrophe...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Diego, CA., USA
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per my company Flight Operations Manual:
The phrase “declaring an emergency” no longer appears in FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary or the FAA 7110. The only method appearing in FAA or ICAO guidance is to declare a distress situation is the use of the word “Mayday” repeated three times. Pilots are cautioned that the use of the phrase “declaring an emergency” is not in compliance with regulatory guidance. (Nov 2017)
The phrase “declaring an emergency” no longer appears in FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary or the FAA 7110. The only method appearing in FAA or ICAO guidance is to declare a distress situation is the use of the word “Mayday” repeated three times. Pilots are cautioned that the use of the phrase “declaring an emergency” is not in compliance with regulatory guidance. (Nov 2017)
If you already have the attention, it's just a waste of brain cycles and precious communication time.
Disagree. Two engine inop approach on 727 for example.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main issue is that the blade (due to being weakened by the fatigue crack) started to bend and rotate forward and did not break away clean to an explosion, like during the test. How many degrees it rotated forward before failing is something that needs to be analysed and might mean we need to rethink containment requirements.
Couple of things... the EASA AD not implemented by the FAA is a bit of a red herring. The effective date of that was only 2 weeks ago and operators have until 1st Jan 2019 to implement it, and it only affects certain PNs which may well change after the SB is embodied. I expect the FAA will now follow EASA’s lead but there’s nothing unusual about this situation. It does take time to inspect 15,000 7Bs globally operating 10 hours per day, which gives you some idea of its despatch reliability. Within that time probably a third of B737s would’ve been through C check which is an opportune time to carry it out.
Fan blades on the 7B also don’t have a finite scrap life (I believe only the Trent 700(?) is one of the few that does) and are replaced on condition after NDT/ultrasound/BSI findings.
If the engine is 10000 cycles since OH it probably is due a restoration soon, but that is nothing unusual (if SW operate 1.5 FH: 1 FC) You’d expect in the operating environment to double that and get up towards the limiter which is 20000.
Fan blades on the 7B also don’t have a finite scrap life (I believe only the Trent 700(?) is one of the few that does) and are replaced on condition after NDT/ultrasound/BSI findings.
If the engine is 10000 cycles since OH it probably is due a restoration soon, but that is nothing unusual (if SW operate 1.5 FH: 1 FC) You’d expect in the operating environment to double that and get up towards the limiter which is 20000.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short answer is YES. There are some minor complications - for example you want to number the blades and put them all back in the exact same position (otherwise you'll foul up the fan balance), but the fan blades can be readily removed, inspected (probably eddy current), and replaced in a few hours.
I won't be surprised if the 9 month compliance period will very soon be shortened substantially through an EAD, at least for engines with a long service life.
Bernd
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an ATC or a pilot, but if someone tells me that half of their engines aren't working, and there's a hole in the plane large enough for someone to fall out out of it - I'm going to consider that an emergency, regardless of what precise terminology is or isn't used.
But regardless of whether or not that word (or the word "mayday") was used, the flight got all the attention required.
There's something to be said for internationally standardised phraseology, but in this case nothing important seemed to be amiss.
Bernd
If you just say "smoke" they will treat you like an emergency.
It's just a status that you need to divert from standard rules for a reason. If they know it they can assist you and clear the other traffic for you.
It's just a status that you need to divert from standard rules for a reason. If they know it they can assist you and clear the other traffic for you.
Anyhow the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM) for a bigger Boeing twin is quite explicit in stating that in the event of a rapid descent you descend at a target speed of Mmo or Vmo unless structural damage is suspected, in which case “limit air speed and avoid high manoeuvring loads”...I suspect the 737 FCTM might contain similar comment....
Controversial, moi?
Surely with damaged engine cowlings, descend as quickly as possible but perhaps not at Max speed?
Boeing tell us, I work as an instructor for Boeing in the UK, that with engine severe damage the vibration will be severe. It is not something we can replicate in the simulator because the amount of vibration would cause other problems apparently. We are assured that you will have no doubt that there is severe vibration!
During conversion and routine refresher training both Engine Severe Damage Separation and Depressurisation exercises are flown. Both events require prompt memory actions. What is unique(?) in this event was that both situations occurred either simultaneously or very close together. That puts a great onus on the crew to prioritise their actions which are made more difficult wearing an oxygen mask which, without doubt, makes communication between crew (sound of O2 through the intercom and restricted ability to look at your colleague directly, almost like wearing horse blinkers) more difficult.
It would have been a situation requiring excellent CRM in such a challenging situation.
It makes me cross in all the reporting that the reference is to 'the pilot'. Undoubtedly her co-pilot was an essential part of the operation to ensure a safe outcome.
With reference to the RT used it must be remembered that the USA has a slightly more laid back approach to RT than perhaps those of us in Europe. Listening to the transcripts there seemed to be no doubt that the seriousness of the situation was understood by all concerned. Had the crew thought otherwise they probably would have broadcast a Mayday call. Certain parts of the world I would say it would be essential!
Well done to all involved.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted in today's NY Times:
To the Editor:
Re “Quiet Flight, Then a Blast and a Sudden Plunge” (front page, April 19):
Capt. Tammie Jo Shults, a former Navy pilot, did an outstanding job flying Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 to safety on Tuesday, but readers should know that all airline pilots train for these emergencies. Demonstrating the ability to fly with an engine failure is required for airline transport pilot certification.
Also, quick drops, although scary, do not mean a crash is inevitable. Planes that lose cabin pressure as Flight 1380 did must descend quickly to an altitude where people can breathe unassisted.
Finally, though Captain Shults has been rightly lauded, the co-pilot, Darren Ellisor, also deserves praise for his skill under pressure. Crews act as teams during emergencies. The co-pilot reads checklists, acts as a second set of hands and talks with air traffic control.
Flying is the safest method of transportation today. We shouldn’t take for granted the many people who make it so.
MARY CATHERINE LONGSHORE
JUPITER, FLA.
The writer is a licensed commercial pilot.
Re “Quiet Flight, Then a Blast and a Sudden Plunge” (front page, April 19):
Capt. Tammie Jo Shults, a former Navy pilot, did an outstanding job flying Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 to safety on Tuesday, but readers should know that all airline pilots train for these emergencies. Demonstrating the ability to fly with an engine failure is required for airline transport pilot certification.
Also, quick drops, although scary, do not mean a crash is inevitable. Planes that lose cabin pressure as Flight 1380 did must descend quickly to an altitude where people can breathe unassisted.
Finally, though Captain Shults has been rightly lauded, the co-pilot, Darren Ellisor, also deserves praise for his skill under pressure. Crews act as teams during emergencies. The co-pilot reads checklists, acts as a second set of hands and talks with air traffic control.
Flying is the safest method of transportation today. We shouldn’t take for granted the many people who make it so.
MARY CATHERINE LONGSHORE
JUPITER, FLA.
The writer is a licensed commercial pilot.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many moons ago, I, like many other readers of these fora, I am sure, had to learn swathes of the JSP 318. For our non-military and overseas friends, JSP 318 was the RAF's 'Miitary Flying Regulations'.
Of course, it was laden with definitions including those of PAN and MAYDAY, the definitions of both I shall undoubtedly carry with me to the grave.
MAYDAY - 'an aircraft is threatened with serious or imminent danger and is in need of immediate assistance'.
I would suggest that the flight in this scenario fitted the bill to the letter and a MAYDAY, irrespective of your location around the globe, would be an unambiguous call to make.
Of course, it was laden with definitions including those of PAN and MAYDAY, the definitions of both I shall undoubtedly carry with me to the grave.
MAYDAY - 'an aircraft is threatened with serious or imminent danger and is in need of immediate assistance'.
I would suggest that the flight in this scenario fitted the bill to the letter and a MAYDAY, irrespective of your location around the globe, would be an unambiguous call to make.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short answer is YES. There are some minor complications - for example you want to number the blades and put them all back in the exact same position (otherwise you'll foul up the fan balance), but the fan blades can be readily removed, inspected (probably eddy current), and replaced in a few hours.
The blades are taken out and inspected an weighed, thats fed into a computer and it defines the optimal position for each blade being put back to achieve the best balance.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact its even more clever than that. When visiting BAs maintenance facility, i was shown what the do on a/c during a C check.
The blades are taken out and inspected an weighed, thats fed into a computer and it defines the optimal position for each blade being put back to achieve the best balance.
The blades are taken out and inspected an weighed, thats fed into a computer and it defines the optimal position for each blade being put back to achieve the best balance.
And the proposed rulemaking concerning CFM56-7B fan blades (referenced here earlier) should give you an idea how quick and easy it is to inspect the blades. The estimated cost for the operator is a mere $170 per engine (2 work hours), which is nothing in aviation.
And I would assume that when you do these inspections, the easiest way is in fact to just number the blades and their position on the disk with a permanent felt-tip marker.
Bernd
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Age: 77
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just noticed this phrase on another article about this possible EAD for engine blade check and realized that the airlines must keep track of cycles for each blade!
“The industry took no major issue with the 2017 proposal, though some airlines requested longer compliance times. They said the rule would affect more than 220 engines because airlines often swap blades between engines.“
I assume this is done to better balance the disk?
Also, what are the statistics on blades that have been found to have a discovered failure during a check? How many cycles did they have on them?
And finally, CFM and/or Boeing better get busy on some sort of analysis (simulation) on how these blade fragments go forward of the "containment ring".
“The industry took no major issue with the 2017 proposal, though some airlines requested longer compliance times. They said the rule would affect more than 220 engines because airlines often swap blades between engines.“
I assume this is done to better balance the disk?
Also, what are the statistics on blades that have been found to have a discovered failure during a check? How many cycles did they have on them?
And finally, CFM and/or Boeing better get busy on some sort of analysis (simulation) on how these blade fragments go forward of the "containment ring".
Last edited by whitav8r; 20th Apr 2018 at 12:40.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is rather ironic that innocent actions during the maintenance and inspections designed to detect and prevent fan blade failure could actually be responsible for some recent failures.