- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Posts
- 15,545
Obviously easiest to state the obvious - if there is an emergency say Mayday..
However I not sure that making these communications prescriptive will improve overall outcomes.
Last edited:
Uncontained Engine Failure South West 737-700
- Thread starter Ansett
- Start date
- Status
Obviously easiest to state the obvious - if there is an emergency say Mayday..
However I not sure that making these communications prescriptive will improve overall outcomes.
AviatorInsight
Established Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Posts
- 1,329
Thanks JB I’ll be running up and down the east coast all day today. I too will say that the crew have done amazing job. I wonder long it will take flight ops to make it into our check and training program
. On a separate note, being that they were on oxygen too does not help with communications. Those oxy masks are horrible so again well done to the crew!
UP4014
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Posts
- 6,900
So your saying a camera could be dangerous because pilots wouldn't follow procedure if they had a view of what their instruments were reporting?
A camera would be an excellent idea for areas not able t be viewed out the windows.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2002
- Posts
- 17,688
- Qantas
- Gold
- Virgin
- Platinum
A reasonable article on the pilot: Southwest Pilot of Flight 1380 Is Navy Veteran Hailed for Her ‘Nerves of Steel’ - her 32 years of Navy and Southwest training and flying made the difference. Not surprised that some pax will be sending her Xmas and gift cards
EXCLUSIVE OFFER - Offer expires: 20 Jan 2025
- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped
*Terms And Conditions Apply
- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped
*Terms And Conditions Apply
AviatorInsight
Established Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Posts
- 1,329
Yes that’s what I’m saying. What more could I do if I was to look on a camera? That an engine is out? Yes I’ll feel that through the controls. That there’s a hole in the aeroplane? Yes I’ll feel that through the controls. That an engine has exploded and not been contained? Again, I’ll feel that through the controls. The most important thing is, what have I got left that is working to get this thing on the ground.
I’m not an engineer. I do what Boeing tell me to do. If an engine is showing a fire indication, I’ll go through the drill regardless of whether it’s false or not. For example, what about when there’s a depressurisation and the masks automatically drop? Should I still activate the passenger oxygen switch because the masks are already down? That’s what the Boeing manual says.
What if we get on the ground and I’m standing there at a board of inquiry and they’re judging my actions and I’m trying to defend them “but Sir I looked on the camera and there was no visible fire so I didn’t pull the handle.”
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2002
- Posts
- 17,688
- Qantas
- Gold
- Virgin
- Platinum
Initial information gleaned from the flight data recorder, report from Aviation Herald:
Accident: Southwest B737 near Philadelphia on Apr 17th 2018, uncontained engine failure takes out passenger window
"On Apr 18th 2018 in their third media briefing the NTSB reported first data are available from the flight data recorder. The left hand engine parameters ran down to 0, the vibrations increased significantly, the cabin altitude alert sounded shortly afterwards, the aircraft made an uncommanded rapid roll to a left bank angle of 41 degrees. The crew decided to use flaps at 5 degrees and landed at 165 KIAS about 22 minutes after the left hand engine failed. The FAA was able to see some debris falling off the aircraft on their radar screens, computed the approximate location taking winds into the account, today additional pieces of engine cowling were found as result. The coughpit voice recorder is going to be read out in the coming days. The NTSB established pieces of cowling impacted the leading edge of the wing. The fatally injured passenger was seated in row 14, the window area is being looked at to determine how the window became shattered. Interviews with flight attendants and flight crew are ongoing. This was the last on scene media briefing. The NTSB has not yet been able to determine whether the fan blades of this particular engine were subject to an Airworthiness Directive a few years ago. The crew sounded very calm and assuring, the hat is off to them. The NTSB does have the root part of the fan blade. The fan blade cracked right at the entry into the hub and also fractured about half way. The initiating event looks like to be the crack at the hub where fatigue occurred."
* The crew elected to land with the flaps at 5 degrees over controllability concerns.
Accident: Southwest B737 near Philadelphia on Apr 17th 2018, uncontained engine failure takes out passenger window
"On Apr 18th 2018 in their third media briefing the NTSB reported first data are available from the flight data recorder. The left hand engine parameters ran down to 0, the vibrations increased significantly, the cabin altitude alert sounded shortly afterwards, the aircraft made an uncommanded rapid roll to a left bank angle of 41 degrees. The crew decided to use flaps at 5 degrees and landed at 165 KIAS about 22 minutes after the left hand engine failed. The FAA was able to see some debris falling off the aircraft on their radar screens, computed the approximate location taking winds into the account, today additional pieces of engine cowling were found as result. The coughpit voice recorder is going to be read out in the coming days. The NTSB established pieces of cowling impacted the leading edge of the wing. The fatally injured passenger was seated in row 14, the window area is being looked at to determine how the window became shattered. Interviews with flight attendants and flight crew are ongoing. This was the last on scene media briefing. The NTSB has not yet been able to determine whether the fan blades of this particular engine were subject to an Airworthiness Directive a few years ago. The crew sounded very calm and assuring, the hat is off to them. The NTSB does have the root part of the fan blade. The fan blade cracked right at the entry into the hub and also fractured about half way. The initiating event looks like to be the crack at the hub where fatigue occurred."
* The crew elected to land with the flaps at 5 degrees over controllability concerns.
Last edited:
jb747
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Posts
- 13,014
A few points.
1. Who is flying the aircraft.... Any abnormal landing will always be carried out by the Captain. Prior to that though, it is up to them how they manage the flying. If the aircraft is proving difficult to control, then that is likely to be the priority over checklists, and it's likely to be the Captain flying. But, if the aircraft's behaviour is relatively benign, then it makes sense to let the FO fly, the the Captain can run the checklists. There is no set rule, and it will vary day to day. The FOs can be considered to be voice activated autopilots, and they allow the Captain to get his head around whatever has happened, come up with a plan, and to talk directly to those involved.
2. QF30 was managed that way for a couple of reasons. At the time the bottle let go, Bernie was first to grab the controls (his sector anyway!). That let me concentrate on what the displays were saying. A few seconds later when it became evident that we needed to go down, there was no reason to take it off him, plus part of my flight displays had failed. Any changes I wanted made, I just instructed him to do. I took over after I had completed as much of the checklist as possible, because I wanted him to check what I'd done, and also to attempt to load some FMC data for the diversion, as my computer wouldn't accept anything. The fact that he had more hours on the 747-400 is irrelevant...and doesn't count my FO hours on the aircraft anyway.
2. ......and who is on the radio. In normal operations, the pilot not flying does all of the radio, and the PF does anything that affects the flight path. But, in an emergency, when checklists have to be done, it's quite normal for the radio to be taken over by the PF. That means that the checklists aren't interrupted...the PNF can totally tune the radio out. That is standard Airbus procedure, but common sense anyway. In this instance, I think the Captain has been doing the flying, whilst the FO did everything else.
3. Cameras. Some more cameras would be nice, but I don't think they're 'game changers' either. If anything, I'd like to be able to see the leading edge of the wing. Mostly cameras would be good for seeing what the loaders are up to, when on the ground.
4. You can't feel a hull breach!
5. It's very hard to say how quickly the cabin climbed, but it may not have been quite as rapidly as you'd expect. The hole isn't that large, it was partially blocked, and at least one pack was pumping air into the cabin as quickly as it could. The upshot of that is that the crew most likely got bang, roll, fire warning in quick succession. But, the cabin warning may not have appeared for a minute or so later. It doesn't sound to me as if she is wearing a mask in the first few radio calls, nor is the profile as rapid as you'd expect if being driven by a depressurisation. So, the turn/descent may have been driven initially by the engine failure/fire, and need to get down for Philly.
6. Information about the window and passenger would not have been immediately available. Not a great deal you could do other than limit the speed.
7. Handling multiple emergencies is a complex game, and there aren't any rules. You try to deal with whatever you consider to be the most important first. You may not even get to some of them. Try not to make it worse. In this instance she has obviously decided to get on to the ground without any delay. I think that was originally driven by the fire, but later probably by the damage and injuries. All I'm seeing is an excellent execution of a really difficult event.
1. Who is flying the aircraft.... Any abnormal landing will always be carried out by the Captain. Prior to that though, it is up to them how they manage the flying. If the aircraft is proving difficult to control, then that is likely to be the priority over checklists, and it's likely to be the Captain flying. But, if the aircraft's behaviour is relatively benign, then it makes sense to let the FO fly, the the Captain can run the checklists. There is no set rule, and it will vary day to day. The FOs can be considered to be voice activated autopilots, and they allow the Captain to get his head around whatever has happened, come up with a plan, and to talk directly to those involved.
2. QF30 was managed that way for a couple of reasons. At the time the bottle let go, Bernie was first to grab the controls (his sector anyway!). That let me concentrate on what the displays were saying. A few seconds later when it became evident that we needed to go down, there was no reason to take it off him, plus part of my flight displays had failed. Any changes I wanted made, I just instructed him to do. I took over after I had completed as much of the checklist as possible, because I wanted him to check what I'd done, and also to attempt to load some FMC data for the diversion, as my computer wouldn't accept anything. The fact that he had more hours on the 747-400 is irrelevant...and doesn't count my FO hours on the aircraft anyway.
2. ......and who is on the radio. In normal operations, the pilot not flying does all of the radio, and the PF does anything that affects the flight path. But, in an emergency, when checklists have to be done, it's quite normal for the radio to be taken over by the PF. That means that the checklists aren't interrupted...the PNF can totally tune the radio out. That is standard Airbus procedure, but common sense anyway. In this instance, I think the Captain has been doing the flying, whilst the FO did everything else.
3. Cameras. Some more cameras would be nice, but I don't think they're 'game changers' either. If anything, I'd like to be able to see the leading edge of the wing. Mostly cameras would be good for seeing what the loaders are up to, when on the ground.
4. You can't feel a hull breach!
5. It's very hard to say how quickly the cabin climbed, but it may not have been quite as rapidly as you'd expect. The hole isn't that large, it was partially blocked, and at least one pack was pumping air into the cabin as quickly as it could. The upshot of that is that the crew most likely got bang, roll, fire warning in quick succession. But, the cabin warning may not have appeared for a minute or so later. It doesn't sound to me as if she is wearing a mask in the first few radio calls, nor is the profile as rapid as you'd expect if being driven by a depressurisation. So, the turn/descent may have been driven initially by the engine failure/fire, and need to get down for Philly.
6. Information about the window and passenger would not have been immediately available. Not a great deal you could do other than limit the speed.
7. Handling multiple emergencies is a complex game, and there aren't any rules. You try to deal with whatever you consider to be the most important first. You may not even get to some of them. Try not to make it worse. In this instance she has obviously decided to get on to the ground without any delay. I think that was originally driven by the fire, but later probably by the damage and injuries. All I'm seeing is an excellent execution of a really difficult event.
Last edited:
moa999
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Posts
- 12,418
While I understand that aircraft manufacturers are conservative in installing any new equipment I am generally surprised about the lack of CCTV in most aircraft.
Both for the pilot - trained on say wheels, wings and engines, and coughpit door
But also inside the cabin for turbulence impact or passenger / security behaviour.
Most buses and trains have multiple cameras per cabin.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2002
- Posts
- 17,688
- Qantas
- Gold
- Virgin
- Platinum
Some things that I just learnt about maydays and pan pan (ain't Google grand): When to Call Mayday Versus Pan-Pan
The radiotelephony message PAN-PAN is the international standard urgency signal that someone aboard a boat, ship, aircraft, or other vehicle uses to declare that they have a situation that is urgent but, for the time being at least, does not pose an immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself.
Mayday got its start as an international distress call in 1923. It was made official in 1948. It was the idea of Frederick Mockford, who was a senior radio officer at Croydon Airport in London. He came up with the idea for “mayday" because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “help me."
From memory of all the ATC YouTube audio files to which I have listened, most (if not close to all) of the PAN PAN calls have been from non-US carriers.
The radiotelephony message PAN-PAN is the international standard urgency signal that someone aboard a boat, ship, aircraft, or other vehicle uses to declare that they have a situation that is urgent but, for the time being at least, does not pose an immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself.
Mayday got its start as an international distress call in 1923. It was made official in 1948. It was the idea of Frederick Mockford, who was a senior radio officer at Croydon Airport in London. He came up with the idea for “mayday" because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “help me."
From memory of all the ATC YouTube audio files to which I have listened, most (if not close to all) of the PAN PAN calls have been from non-US carriers.
jb747
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Posts
- 13,014
The US don't use PAN, and saying it just confuses the issue. They understand Mayday, but as often as not the simple term 'declaring an emergency' invokes the response desired. In any event, you don't need to clutter the airways once it's obvious that ATC have the picture, as they obviously did here.
The level of emergency is totally the Captain's decision. QF30 was a mayday. QF32 was never taken above a pan. QF72 was initially a pan, but upped to a mayday when the injuries became evident. A simple engine shutdown in a twin would most probably just be a pan. It wouldn't even be that in a quad. Mention fire, and it's a mayday again.
The level of emergency is totally the Captain's decision. QF30 was a mayday. QF32 was never taken above a pan. QF72 was initially a pan, but upped to a mayday when the injuries became evident. A simple engine shutdown in a twin would most probably just be a pan. It wouldn't even be that in a quad. Mention fire, and it's a mayday again.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Posts
- 15,545
The landing was conducted at higher than normal speed (30-35KIAS above usual and Flaps5
Apparently according to Flight Crew was to minimise any "controllability issues"
I don't know if the flight crew were aware of the damage to the leading edge/slats prior to landing.
Some speculation was that the higher speed preserves energy for any potential single engine go around
Others speculate that this has something to do with damage to the leading edge slats
Any insights would be appreciated.
Apparently according to Flight Crew was to minimise any "controllability issues"
I don't know if the flight crew were aware of the damage to the leading edge/slats prior to landing.
Some speculation was that the higher speed preserves energy for any potential single engine go around
Others speculate that this has something to do with damage to the leading edge slats
Any insights would be appreciated.
oz_mark
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2002
- Posts
- 21,549
Reports are that she was indeed wearing her seat belt.
jb747
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Posts
- 13,014
There would be more than enough power to go around single engined from the normal profile. All of the twins have substantial excess.
She may not have known for sure about any wing or tail damage, but choosing a higher speed is cautious. It limits the amount of flap/slat that would have been used. Much more control authority, through all of the control surfaces. An incident like this throws up the chance of asymmetric flap extension, which would normally be countered by the aircraft, but something else to be wary of.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Posts
- 28,227
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Star Alliance
- Silver
I see South West had sent each pax a cheque for US$5,0000 And a travel voucher for an additional US$1,000, plus an apology.
At least one pax reported as being probably not enough, will be talking to a lawyer
Really hard to judge, as trama is individual and unpredictable, but I think if I got that in the mail, I'd be satisfied.
At least one pax reported as being probably not enough, will be talking to a lawyer
Really hard to judge, as trama is individual and unpredictable, but I think if I got that in the mail, I'd be satisfied.
oz_mark
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2002
- Posts
- 21,549
I see South West had sent each pax a cheque for US$5,0000 And a travel voucher for an additional US$1,000, plus an apology.
At least one pax reported as being probably not enough, will be talking to a lawyer
Really hard to judge, as trama is individual and unpredictable, but I think if I got that in the mail, I'd be satisfied.
I would think the $5,000 is to deal with immediate needs, rather than anything else. Not sure cashing it would prevent you seeking further compensation if warranted.
Strategic Aviation
Established Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2017
- Posts
- 1,385
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Posts
- 28,227
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Star Alliance
- Silver
Actually, yes, that's how the quoted letter was worded. I'm cheap, obviously!
- Status
Become an AFF member!
Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!
AFF forum abbreviations
Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
