Hmmm try again

https://www.wsj.com/video/southwest-flight-1380-what-happened-onboard/366C7463-2DD5-4AF8-ABCD-ADF6510D3401.html?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

cant figure out how to edit this new fubarproved system

Sorry

And I now am able to delete that previous mess - message ( I think )

That works, Conso. Thanks.

Thanks for that excellent Wall Street Journal piece, Conso. It brings home to me, again, what a wonderfully calming presence Capt Shults has. Under great pressure, she manages to speak in a conversational way in plain English. And she, and the FO of course, got it back without further injury. Excellent.

airsound

Here is another good article from WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/southwe...ent-1524834000

Did anyone see any confirmed reports of ear problems in any of the passengers?
I'd have expected a few ruptured eardrums with the rate of decompression when the window went.
Possible that some may even have ended up bent.

There was a report of a passenger standing with his back against the empty window port.

It would be interesting to see what happened with cabin altitude at various stages of the descent.
Obviously a sudden drop to drop the masks. But did the fellows butt in the window make any difference? To cabin altitude, that is. Not denigrating his efforts in any way.)

I wouldn't. With respect to cabin altitude/decompression, the loss of one window is not dramatic. It usually results in the cabin altitude climbing at about 2000-3000 fpm (about the same as the initial climb after take-off). In this event, it wasn't even a full window opening - it was (tragically) partially blocked. So the cabin climb rate would have been even less.

Probably not. Decompression sickness (the bends) becomes an issue above 25,000 feet. The aircraft was about 33,000 feet when they commenced descent. An emergency descent typically achieves about 6,000 fpm rate of descent. Assume a conservative case of the cabin at 14,000 feet and climbing at 2,000 fpm when the descent was initiated. Solving that basic math problem has the aircraft and the cabin altitudes equalizing after 2.375 minutes at 18,750 feet. It's unlikely anyone would get 'bent' at that altitude.

The masks automatically drop when the cabin altitude reaches a predetermined level (usually between 10,000-14,000 feet). The rate at which the cabin altitude is increasing (or the 'suddeness' of the decompression) is irrelevant.

I'm curious about that as well. I suspect that they were only able to pull the lady in after the cabin and outside air pressures were approximately equal. After that the cabin would have been fully depressurised and any air loss from the cabin would have been due to a venturi effect. A butt in the window might slow/stop that. But was it enough to create an effective seal? Did the cabin start to repressurise? Was the gentleman stuck there until the cabin was depressurised after landing? Did he suffer any injuries - eg a Petechial Rash or worse?

I wonder what altitude the cabin finally reached. It is the descent, asa much as the climb, where ear problems can occur. A few decades ago there was an Air Europe B757, out of Bangor I believe. They decompressed at crz level. During the emergency descent there were numerous complaints amongst pax & CA's of ear damage/problems. I don't know what the cabin climbed to. If the cabin climbs to crz level, or above 25.000', and then descends at 6000fpm there is a strong chance of ear drum problems.

Assuming the story about the passenger blocking the window is accurate, it might have been done to keep anyone else from falling out, rather than actually trying to block the air flow. For that matter, it could simple have been done to reassure the other passengers, who were probably freaking about "Gaping hole in the plane! Ack!"

I suspect when the NTSB-FAA report comes out, there will be a data tabulation/curve showing the change in cabin altitude versus time- My GUESS is that it may have reached 16,000 to 18,000 feet,sinc it was likely that the pressurization system reduced the rate of depressurization. Somewhere there should be design or test data- regulations which would accommodate the loss of one window at cruise altitude.

One of the impediments against the early SST proposals was the cruise altitude vs decompression rate vs the size of the holes made by a bursting turbine disk.

perhaps this may help ?

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/AC_25-20.pdf

With one engine shut doen and the other at idle, I think the pressurization system would not be very effective.

That sounds possible. It's not necessarily the case that a cabin with a broken window can't hold any pressure - it's akin to having a second one of these, albeit one that's stuck in the open position:

http://www.b737.org.uk/images/main_o...lve_ng_new.jpg

President Trump will meet with the crew of Southwest 1380 :ok: :

Gota tellya, Bubba, but 26 years ago I would have been "interested" in Miss Tammie, with a buncha other folks, pilots or not. Heh heh.

I never had a single problem with the female pilots back in the day, especially in the Viper. That rascal was made for small people and you did not have to be a 200 pound gorilla to handle it just fine. But we in USAF didn't get females in fighters until 1995 or 96 or so. And the Navy restricted Miss Tammie to "training" outfits.

All that being said, the lady done good to get into fighters and then now for over twenty years as a custodian of more than a hundred SLF folks that depended on her to get them here and there.

No doubt the lady is getting the attention because she is a lady!!! So let her be a good example for anyone that wants to be a pilot and stop all the "diversity" emphasis. A good pilot is a good pilot.

Gums opines...

Apparently, so was her husband, also a SWA captain. :D

Is it right that the investigation of (first incident) 2016 is yet incomplete, and no conclusions are published. There has been no AD issued in 2016 incident? Yes, CFM then issued an inspection SB, but there is no related AD.

Preliminary report :

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...CA18MA142.aspx