A fine example of professionalism by a pilot during emergency

[Music Lover]

Airlines have been getting a bad rap lately, but this pilot deserves a load of praise...an engine exploded and detached in mid-air blowing a hole in the plane that almost sucked out a passenger, and she never loses her composure.

The audio between pilot and control tower is at this link:

Southwest Pilot Amazingly Calm During Engine | The Daily Caller

[Jerry1]

One thing I've always appreciated about pilots - our goals are aligned. We both want to get back on the ground. Any landing you can walk away from, as they say, is a good one. Good for her. That's one hell of a responsibility and must have been one extremely terrifying event.

[DFDubb]

To be accurate, the engine didn't explode nor did it detach from the airplane. If either of those were to happen, the outcome would've been far different.

[audreyh1]

I thought the engine did explode.

Certainly shrapnel hurtled out with enough force to break a window and cause a hole in the fuselage and cause rapid cabin depressurization.

[flintnational]

While this incident is very tragic, I heard on the radio this was the first US commercial airline death since 2009. I find it amazing that commercial airline travel is virtually risk free. As we have all heard, statistically (by a wide factor) you are much more at risk driving to the airport than flying on the plane.

[DFDubb]

One of the fan blades detached from the hub (likely due to metal fatigue). This would be similar to a bird strike. Yes that sent shrapnel through the engine and caused a broken window. This incident however, is a far cry from an actual explosion which would've resulted in a much more dire situation and likely a plane full of dead people.

[jazz4cash]

I'm curious to hear more details of the failure. Rotating machines are supposed to contain the damage internally as much as possible in the event of catastrophic failure. Metal fatigue can be avoided but bird strikes cannot. I read a book about the US Air flight that was forced to land on the Hudson due to bird strikes on both engines. They use frozen turkeys to test the engines.

[DFDubb]

It's all speculation at this point, but my main point was that the engine did not explode nor did it detach from the airplane. I'm not sure where the OP got that from.

[jazz4cash]

Probably no big deal compared to nighttime carrier landings.

[kgtest]

Was she a navy fighter pilot? If AirForce, those pilots don't do the night time carrier training. Or at least I don't think F15 does.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgtest Was she a navy fighter pilot?

Yes. Actually, they call themselves Naval Aviators. A pilot is another career field in the maritime world.

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgtest Was she a navy fighter pilot? If AirForce, those pilots don't do the night time carrier training. Or at least I don't think F15 does.

She flew F-18 Hornets for the Navy, so it's a pretty good bet she's flown on/off carriers.

[OldShooter]

Shults did a good job, no doubt about that, but flying the airplane single engine is standard sim drill and the airplanes are designed and tested for it. The more difficult drill is losing an engine on takeoff.

I am surprised, though, that we have not heard more about the First Officer. Normal drill if the Captain is on the radios then he/she is the Pilot Not Flying (PNF) and the FO is the Pilot Flying (PF). If Shults was actually PF and also on the radio that is a serious violation of the cockpit resource management that she has repeatedly encountered in her training.

Again, this is not criticizing. If the FO was PF for that leg of the flight, it would be very logical for the Capt. to remain PNF, working the emergency checklists and working with ATC. That's totally a personality thing, though. IIRC Skiles was PF for the leg and Sully took over for the Hudson River landing.

[ERD50]

from that earlier link:

Quote:

... “Southwest 1380, we’re single engine,” Shults said over the radio. “We have part of the aircraft missing, so we’re going to need to slow down a bit.” “We’ve got injured passengers,” she said. “No, it’s not on fire, but part of it’s missing,” Shults said when asked if the plane was on fire. “They said there’s a hole, and uh, someone went out.” ...

All spoken completely calmly. “No, it’s not on fire, but part of it’s missing,” "we’re going to need to slow down a bit."

OK, I know they go through training, and their life is on the line and they know that getting excited and screaming isn't going to help, but still!
Color me impressed.

-ERD50

[scrabbler1]

She reminded me of Sulley (Chesley Sullenberger) who safely landed the plan in the Hudson back in 2009 after those bird strikes. Good to know those nerves of steel exist in both genders.

[lwp2017]

Flight attendants were also very impressive on the internet videos of the passenger compartment.

Although the stress shows in their voice commands, they clearly followed the training, albeit only a few days as compared to the pilots many hours in simulators learning how to react under stress.

Imagine a cabin full of panicking passengers, seeing a passenger being expelled through a broken window and potential for a crash.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFDubb It's all speculation at this point, but my main point was that the engine did not explode nor did it detach from the airplane. I'm not sure where the OP got that from.

It was in the news article that I linked. I guess hoping for accuracy in journalism is just a fantasy these days...

[Bestwifeever]

I think it is being called an engine explosion in many articles—here’s one headline: “Southwest Airlines engine explosion linked to prior accident” https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...752#pt0-902676

[lwp2017]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever I think it is being called an engine explosion in many articles—here’s one headline: “Southwest Airlines engine explosion linked to prior accident” https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...752#pt0-902676

I respectfully disagree with the media.
The engine catastrophically failed, it didn't explode.

Technically speaking:

Event was an energetic disassembly of a high speed rotating machine. The engine fan blade liberated due to crack propagation.

"Explosions" generate shock waves that exceed the speed of sound. The vast majority due to air compression from heat generated as a result of rapid oxidation of chemicals.

I have personally seen some examples of catastrophic machine failure in my former career, some on extremely large machines.

[jollystomper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwp2017 I respectfully disagree with the media. The engine catastrophically failed, it didn't explode.

"Engine explosion" is a more dramatic headline to attract attention.