A fine example of professionalism by a pilot during emergency

[Tetto]

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.

Did they already determine fan blade failure? I did not see the NTSB report, did you? It could have been caused by many other things, based on my experience. Blade failure is usually propagated by FOD or bird strike, not out of the blue unless there is a manufacturing defect.

 

[samclem]

Here's an interesting account of a C-141 (4 engine military transport plane) that had an "uncontained failure" of the turbine section (not the fan section, as on this SW plane) of the #3 engine on takeoff climb. It was a doozy: the engine was dangling from the pylon, the blades/debris destroyed the other engine on that wing, the peppered wing fuel tanks were leaking jet fuel, and the debris from the turbine section had gone into the fuselage and started a big fire in the cargo area. Oh, and the plane was very heavy, taking off from an airfield in Australia for a long pacific flight. Not good.

The plane couldn't maintain altitude and the crew looked for a place to "set down" (i.e. crash) and, of course, used max available power on the remaining engines. As they descended into a riverbed, they slowly retracted the flaps from the takeoff setting and discovered the reduced drag allowed them to level off and even climb a little. They were able to return to the airfield and land.

Lots of good airmanship by the cockpit crew and professionalism in the cabin (fighting the fire, clearing the smoke, keeping everyone supplied with oxygen, etc). During the investigation, the board noted that after the engine failures, the pilot in command had "firewalled" the remaining two good engines, requiring that they undergo a very expensive rebuilding. He was reportedly asked "why he had deliberately brought them to 107% of their rated thrust?", and he reportedly replied "I set them at 107% because they wouldn't do 108%" (unstated--"go to he!!"). It might be an apocryphal story, but is entirely consistent with the view pilots have of these investigatory accident boards.

 

[samclem]

Did they already determine fan blade failure? I did not see the NTSB report, did you?

I read an account attributed to an NTSB source that said it was the failure of a single fan blade, and said it was a fatigue crack. The blade is long gone, so I'm assuming this is based on what they can see where it was attached to the hub.

 

[Tetto]

I read an account attributed to an NTSB source that said it was the failure of a single fan blade, and said it was a fatigue crack. The blade is long gone, so I'm assuming this is based on what they can see where it was attached to the hub.

I saw the same thing; but I usually wait until the NTSB files their report before I believe any media account. They do have a spotty record on reporting, these media people do. Even if a NTSB source supposedly said it! With engines, it's often something other than the obvious thats the cause.

 

[Gumby]

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

For all you landlubbers, he means this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_pilot

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I wish the flight training departments would get kudos once in a while with these incidents. If there is an accident when a training issue is "identified", they are immediately thrown under the bus. But, when a crew does exactly AS TRAINED, you hear nothing. She was as calm as she was because of the excellent training she got through the years (and no, I am not trying to minimize her actions).

As far as the uncontained engine failure is concerned, this isn't the first time for this engine series to have issues. I won't go in depth here, but here is an FAA point paper that might be revisited now that this problem seems to have returned. Lessons Learned

 

[Tetto]

I wish the flight training departments would get kudos once in a while with these incidents. If there is an accident when a training issue is "identified", they are immediately thrown under the bus. But, when a crew does exactly AS TRAINED, you hear nothing. She was as calm as she was because of the excellent training she got through the years (and no, I am not trying to minimize her actions).

As far as the uncontained engine failure is concerned, this isn't the first time for this engine series to have issues. I won't go in depth here, but here is an FAA point paper that might be revisited now that this problem seems to have returned. Lessons Learned

Interesting read! In my previous life, I was involved with the teardown and investigation of a PW4000 takeoff failure (corn-cobbed). Engine failed at max takeoff thrust due to what was universally believed to be a liberated 5th stage HPC blade- an unfortunately common occurrence if the pilot didn't observe strict power up procedure (design issue). Turns out it wasn't that at all. The German airline mechanics had just borescoped the HPC and rein-inserted the borescope plugs into the wrong positions. The plugs are different lengths; they put a too long plug into the 5 blade position- the plug contacted the variable vanes severely disrupting airflow and not allowing the vane subsystem to move properly, snapping a blade off at the root. On detailed inspection, I found a vane where the borescope plug had contacted, and bent the vane preventing movement. We saved the company a $25 million dollar claim and proved the real cause of the event. Nobody died either- the 767 aborted takeoff in time.

 

[CardsFan]

Never had an incident like this, and hope I never will. But if I do, my first thought is I want his pilot (and maybe Sully?) to be in the cabin!

On the other hand, maybe we already have that 99.9% of the time.

Pilots and flight crews do not really get the credit they deserve. We ignore the safety announcement, we ignore the attendants, but when the SHTF, who is there?

 

[travelover]

There was some bravery demonstrated by the passengers who tried to save the woman who was being sucked out the window, as well. That had to be a crazy few seconds.

 

[OldShooter]

This is an update to my post #13 where I was wondering why the captain was apparently flying the airplane and running the radios.

Talking to some airline guys I learned that the drill varies quite a bit from airline to airline. Probably SW cockpit resource management drill had the captain flying and talking to ATC while the first office dealt with the flight attendants, communicating with the company and the emergency checklists. It also could have been that the captain was not flying the airplane and instead was dealing with all that stuff and the FO was flying. We may find out some day or we may not. Probably she took over flying for the landing anyway.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

This is an update to my post #13 where I was wondering why the captain was apparently flying the airplane and running the radios.

Talking to some airline guys I learned that the drill varies quite a bit from airline to airline. Probably SW cockpit resource management drill had the captain flying and talking to ATC while the first office dealt with the flight attendants, communicating with the company and the emergency checklists. It also could have been that the captain was not flying the airplane and instead was dealing with all that stuff and the FO was flying. We may find out some day or we may not. Probably she took over flying for the landing anyway.

Your scenario is probable. Most airlines (specifically FAA Part 121 carriers) stipulate that the PIC (pilot in command) make all landings when an emergency has been declared. When this "exchange" of duties occurs will depend on what the emergency procedures dictate. As an example, some emergencies might require "load shedding" of electrical systems that may de-power the radio transmit function for a specific crew position, so roles (pilot flying/pilot not flying) may reverse. In this situation, it can be assumed that they were at least running three procedures...the engine out (for obvious reasons), rapid decompression, and some sort of "airframe disintegration" (as evidenced by the pilot telling ATC that they were slowing down...this is very common when there is/suspected structural failure). So, there is a lot going on in a very short period of time.

Odds are that once they figured out the plane would maintain flight and they prioritized what needed to get done, the captain took over flying duties (assuming the co-pilot was flying when the engine came apart).

You will be able to see exactly what happened when the final NTSB report is released, it will have the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder included.

 

[gindie]

I may be mistaken, but I thought I did hear the FO on some of the radio transmissions.

One lesson/reminder we all can get from this incident...The oxygen mask goes over BOTH the mouth AND nose. Many pictures from inside the cabin showed the masks only over the mouth.

 

[jazz4cash]

FAA orders 'emergency' engine inspections after deadly blast on Southwest flight
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/faa...e-type-that-exploded-on-southwest-flight.html

This bit confused me:
"Southwest said its existing maintenance program "meets or exceeds all the requirements" in the FAA order."

That sounds like the inspection needs to be performed more frequently to detect the issue.

 

[brucethebroker]

FAA orders 'emergency' engine inspections after deadly blast on Southwest flight
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/faa...e-type-that-exploded-on-southwest-flight.html

This bit confused me:
"Southwest said its existing maintenance program "meets or exceeds all the requirements" in the FAA order."

That sounds like the inspection needs to be performed more frequently to detect the issue.

The media is doing a disservice (IMO) by not clarifying that this is not just a Southwest problem. It is a 737 problem, the plane used by numerous carriers.

 

[Aerides]

The media is doing a disservice (IMO) by not clarifying that this is not just a Southwest problem. It is a 737 problem, the plane used by numerous carriers.

Most of my news-media consumption is online only, but I'm pretty aware that it's a potential wider issue, with the part/engine/age, and it's very far from being "just southwest".

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I may be mistaken, but I thought I did hear the FO on some of the radio transmissions.

One lesson/reminder we all can get from this incident...The oxygen mask goes over BOTH the mouth AND nose. Many pictures from inside the cabin showed the masks only over the mouth.

On the subject of oxygen masks. I hate that the required briefing that is given prior to flight is so watered down. This was evident from the guy who was busy getting online to start a Facebook feed instead of getting on O2. Had he been told that his time of useful consciousness at 30,000 feet was probably in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 seconds, he might have gotten on oxygen BEFORE being stupid.

 

[OldShooter]

On the subject of oxygen masks. I hate that the required briefing that is given prior to flight is so watered down. This was evident from the guy who was busy getting online to start a Facebook feed instead of getting on O2. Had he been told that his time of useful consciousness at 30,000 feet was probably in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 seconds, he might have gotten on oxygen BEFORE being stupid.

But ... we have so few mechanisms of Darwinian selection left.

 

[samclem]

Your scenario is probable. Most airlines (specifically FAA Part 121 carriers) stipulate that the PIC (pilot in command) make all landings when an emergency has been declared.

That's interesting, any idea of the rationale? The PIC is presumably more experienced than the FO, but that doesn't mean he/she is necessarily the best one to land the plane. If the PIC assesses that the FO is a better stick-and-rudder pilot than the PIC, I'd want him/her to have the option to delegate the landing to the FO. Granted, it would be a very unusual circumstance in which the PIC would do that.

 

[jazz4cash]

The media is doing a disservice (IMO) by not clarifying that this is not just a Southwest problem. It is a 737 problem, the plane used by numerous carriers.

I'm thinking the engine is used in other aircraft so not just a 737 problem either.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

That's interesting, any idea of the rationale? The PIC is presumably more experienced than the FO, but that doesn't mean he/she is necessarily the best one to land the plane. If the PIC assesses that the FO is a better stick-and-rudder pilot than the PIC, I'd want him/her to have the option to delegate the landing to the FO. Granted, it would be a very unusual circumstance in which the PIC would do that.

I think it's just a hold over from the days of yesteryear when *usually* the PIC had more experience (at least in that type airplane) that the FO. In practice, I have heard several pilot friends mention that they will use the ultimate power of the "captain's final decision and discretion" and allow the FO to land the airplane in a declared emergency depending on the situation.

As an example, I have a neighbor who is an FO for Delta. He is also one of the most senior pilots for Delta and has maintained his "FO status" because he likes his station in life. He is arguably one of the most experienced pilots for the airplane he flies and he has on several occasions landed at the most challenging airports or conditions at the captain's request. This isn't too uncommon now since many of the junior captains have been at the airline for less than 5 years and many of the older heads didn't upgrade to captain for one reason or another.

 

[OldShooter]

Actually, in the case of SW1380, flying the airplane was probably one of the simplest tasks that needed to be done. There was no major airframe damage, no damage to control surfaces, it was in level flight at altitude, etc., and both pilots had probably trained for single engine operations many, many times. In fact, they probably used the autopilot for most of the flight and maybe even for the approach. I'm sure she hand-flew the landing however.

The more complex tasks included damage assessment, dealing with the depressurization, dealing with the FAs, the pax, the emergency checklists, and talking to the company. A lot has been said for her communications with ATC but I have listened to the tape and all of it is pretty normal stuff. Yes, she didn't go nuts and start screaming, but that's just not going to happen with professionals. Even thanking the local controller (Tower) at the end is not uncommon.

Actually, one of the most interesting bits in the tape I listened to was Approach Control getting everyone out of her way. If you want to hear a professional at work, try to listen to that segment.

 

[GrayHare]

One lesson/reminder we all can get from this incident...The oxygen mask goes over BOTH the mouth AND nose. Many pictures from inside the cabin showed the masks only over the mouth.

Many of the short-term oxygen masks I've seen lack a detent for the bridge of the nose. A detent would act as a reminder of proper mask placement.