Slashdot Mirror


Southwest Airlines Engine Failure Results In First Fatality On US Airline In 9 Years (heavy.com)

schwit1 shares a report from Heavy: Tammie Jo Shults is the pilot who bravely flew Southwest Flight 1380 to safety after part of its left engine ripped off, damaging a window and nearly sucking a woman out of the plane. The flight was en route to Dallas Love airport from New York City, and had to make an emergency landing in Philadelphia. Shults, 56, kept her cool during an incredibly intense situation, audio from her conversation with air traffic controllers reveals, while many passengers posted on social media that they were scared these were their last moments. She, with the help of the co-pilot and the rest of the crew, landed the plane safely. The NTSB reported that there was one fatality out of 143 passengers on board. Some passengers said that someone had a heart attack during the flight, but it's not yet known if this was the fatality reported by the NTSB. The woman who died has been identified by KOAT-TV as Jennifer Riordan, 43, of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

44 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Really Bad luck by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Informative

    These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Really Bad luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "When it is infinitely improbable that something will ever happen, it will happen almost immediately." - Douglas Adams.

    2. Re:Really Bad luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's the design, but in this case it hasn't been all that successful. The FAA already issued an airworthiness directive (essentially the aircraft version of a mandatory recall) for these engines because of this type of failure. So either the airline didn't comply with the requirement, it wasn't sufficient to address this known defect, or the FAA gave too much leniency in the timeline (sometimes these are phased in over time to avoid grounding too many planes at once).

      So, yes, bad luck to be on the plane with the exploding engine, and sitting in the path of the flying debris, but not THAT extraordinary, because the risk of the engine fragmenting was known.

    3. Re:Really Bad luck by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is a really weird failure. If you look at some of the photos around the place, you can see that it appears to be only one blade that has departed, and the rest of the fan looks remarkably undamaged. Rather than breaking free and flying into the fan housing (which is designed to contain a failure), it appears to have moved forward clear of the housing, and out through the engine cowling. Presumably from there it exited into the fuselage, or other bits of the cowling/ancillaries took out the window.

      But I agree, incredibly unlucky for the passenger involved. It is still quite remarkable how safe air travel is though, all things considered.

    4. Re:Really Bad luck by dunkelfalke · · Score: 5, Informative

      9 years for a fatality on a US airline. Uncontained engine failures happen far more often than that.
      Here's one that happened just 6 months ago.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Really Bad luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      personally for most I things I would trust Chinese made over American made

      You should try your luck with a Chinese made elevator then.

    6. Re:Really Bad luck by torkus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uhm no. That's exactly the opposite of how the engines are designed.

      Modern jet engines are specifically designed to contain all the debris in an engine failure - in particular all the blades which are both the most energetic and most durable. They destructively test by pyrotechnicaly detaching a blade at max RPM...go google, it's fun to watch.

      Something fucked up here and parts impacted the rather fragile plane...which happens, but it not the design intent. Had the engine not contained MOST of the debris they likely would not have been able to land at all.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:Really Bad luck by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really the CFM56 engine in question has a history of fan blade failures. It was instrumental in the Kegworth air disaster in 1989 that after a couple more fan blade failures lead to a redesign and over 1800 CFM56's having them replaced.

      There was another uncontained fan blade failure on a CFM56 on Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 in August 2016 before yesterday's incident that was another uncontained engine failure and I will lay a large sum of money that it was a fan blade failure of a CFM56 engine.

      I would say that five fan blade failures on an engine is very unusual.

      This is not counting the numerous fuel flow problems and flame outs due to rain/hail ingestion this engine has suffered.

    8. Re:Really Bad luck by rfengr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boeing does not make engines. They choose another manufacturer at time of order. It’s probably GE, RR, or P&W.

    9. Re: Really Bad luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was a CF engine made by GE

    10. Re:Really Bad luck by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      "Almost immediately" is relative. On the Universe timeline, humanity's existence just barely registers as a bleep.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re: Really Bad luck by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Oh shit.... my fridge is made by GE. Is it going to explode in nine years?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    12. Re:Really Bad luck by dj245 · · Score: 4, Informative

      These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.

      Turbine engineer here. While engines are definitely designed so that parts do not liberate through the casing, there are plenty of incidents where that has occurred.

      And explosions (as in an undesired rapid combustion of fuel and air) are indeed very unlikely. But explosions are not the most common failure mode. Blade liberation due to defects in the blade, or due to ingested material are the most common reason for a catastrophic failure.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    13. Re:Really Bad luck by dj245 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhm no. That's exactly the opposite of how the engines are designed.

      Modern jet engines are specifically designed to contain all the debris in an engine failure - in particular all the blades which are both the most energetic and most durable. They destructively test by pyrotechnicaly detaching a blade at max RPM...go google, it's fun to watch.

      Something fucked up here and parts impacted the rather fragile plane...which happens, but it not the design intent. Had the engine not contained MOST of the debris they likely would not have been able to land at all.

      That is certainly the design intent, but that is not how things work in the real world. There are plenty of incidents where a blade liberation has exited the casing. The destructive test regimen is likely dictated by someone (probably the US and/or other governments), and you can bet that the engine is designed to pass the test but be no stronger (to save weight). Pyrotechnically detaching a single blade also does not 100% match some actual failure modes. For example, there are several reasons why multiple blades may liberate simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, causing a severe rotor unbalance which can lead to *more* blade failures.

      I'm not saying that the design and testing of these engines is inadequate, certainly it is good enough to limit real-world failures to a reasonable number. But it does not cover all cases or result in engine failure containment 100% of the time.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    14. Re:Really Bad luck by dj245 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say that five fan blade failures on an engine is very unusual.

      As a turbine engineer, I disagree. That is an excellent track record considering that the air ingested by the engine is unfiltered and damage may occur between major inspection intervals that are not picked up by the engine instrumentation or visual inspection.

      Land-based engines are generally built more robustly (since weight is not a concern), have extensive air filtration systems, similar inspection periods, less abuse (# of start/stop cycles per day), and yet they fail at a higher rate than this. 5 failures is a very low rate considering the fleet operating hours.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    15. Re:Really Bad luck by bobbied · · Score: 2

      These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.

      It's even worse than that. This was not an uncontained engine failure by all appearances. The broken window was well behind the rotating parts of the engine and looks like it was hit by a large piece of something that left marks all around the window on the fuselage. My guess is that some large part covering the engine came up over the wing and struck the window, breaking it.

      This was the *definition* of a freak accident. The chances of an engine failure like this are very slim, especially at cruse. Then, as the engine self destructs, large pieces of the engine covering depart the aircraft OVER the wig, hit the fuselage but missing any thing else vital, broke ONE window causing explosive decompression while the passenger sitting next to it is unbuckled and nearly gets pulled out by the rushing air? Your chances of getting struck by lighting, twice, are better.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:Really Bad luck by bobbied · · Score: 2

      My look at the pictures tells me that officially the engine failure WAS likely contained, in that all the rotor blades stayed within the containment system. If you look at where the fuselage was damaged it was well aft of the rotating parts of the engine. What happened was as the engine self destructed, parts of the cowling got loose and aerodynamic forces blew it over the wing and into the fuselage.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:Really Bad luck by coryhamma · · Score: 2

      Is it possible that the Boeing planes have a longer lifespan than the other manufacturers, and the planes you were flying in were older than those other brands? It may also have to do with what airline you fly most frequently, as some airlines purchase more Airbus than Boeing.

    18. Re:Really Bad luck by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Often is right. That makes two fan blade detachments on this model of engine in less than two years. And it is also the second such uncontained engine failure to puncture the body of the plane while failing, though the bits didn't make it all the way into the cabin the first time. IMO, that really should not happen, much less twice.

      Call me cynical, but the more news stories I see remarking about the engine's safety record, the more concerned I become. Subjectively, it feels like we're seeing a lot more catastrophic loss of cowling lately than we used to. Maybe that's just the 24-hour news cycle skewing my perception, but I think it would be interesting to see if the materials involved have changed significantly over the last decade or two, and if that might be a contributing factor.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:Really Bad luck by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      My understanding of "contained" means that any ejected engine pieces go through the tailpipe (under the wing) where they are unlikely to do much damage. I would argue that if parts of the engine ahead of the wing were ejected upwards and/or forwards with so much force that they made it over the leading edge of the wing, it was an uncontained failure even if the part that hit the fuselage was part of the cowling severed by the fan blade, rather than the fan blade itself.

      More to the point, if that's not the way it is defined, then IMO the definition is dangerously wrong. Those upwards-flying bits of cowling could just as easily have hit the leading edge of the wing and damaged various control surfaces or punctured the fuel tank, in which case we very well might have hundreds of fatalities instead of just one.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:Really Bad luck by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      The FAA already issued an airworthiness directive (essentially the aircraft version of a mandatory recall) for these engines because of this type of failure. So either the airline didn't comply with the requirement, it wasn't sufficient to address this known defect, or the FAA gave too much leniency in the timeline (sometimes these are phased in over time to avoid grounding too many planes at once).

      Unless the FAA hasn't kept their website up-to-date, that airworthiness directive hasn't gone into effect yet. They proposed it back in late August.

      So yes, this is, at least to some degree, a regulatory failure.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re:Really Bad luck by dontbgay · · Score: 2

      As a former aircraft technician, I'd hazard to say that someone saw a potential problem yet didn't want to sacrifice the flight schedule. In a culture where they place anything and everything on MEL (minimum equipment list, pretty much a deferred maintenance action) just to make the flight, people cut corners. The reason I'm a former aircraft technician and not a current technician is because of those exact concerns. When the companies and culture place more emphasis on processes and procedures than the technical abilities of their technicians, those processes and procedures are bound to fall flat sooner or later. I sleep better knowing my freedom and livelihood doesn't revolve around the lowest common denominator actually performing the inspections they sign off.

      --
      Sig not found.
  2. It's Trump's Fault by multi+io · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trump credited himself for the lack of U.S. aviation fatalities during his administration, so this one is on him.

    1. Re:It's Trump's Fault by tomhath · · Score: 2

      when dickheads like you act like the mature adults you're supposed to be

      Wow, really mature comment there. How about taking your own advice.

    2. Re:It's Trump's Fault by orlanz · · Score: 2

      From Reuters, the whole tweet:
      “Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!”

      The "best and safest year on record"; no one reaches as much as Trump. That's a follow up sentence to something he says he did. And he didn't actually do the first either. What he actually did earlier was say that there were too many regulations in Commercial Aviation and things should be privatized (failed in Congress). The most the Trump administration did related to airlines was up the security requirements in boarding. Which has been a continuation of what Bush started, & Obama added on.

  3. "bravely"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tammie Jo Shults is the pilot who bravely flew Southwest Flight 1380 to safety after part of its left engine ripped off

    So what would have been the cowardly variant? Crashing the plane?

    Adjectives have meaning. I mean, I'm glad that part of its left engine hasn't "tragically" ripped off since nowadays everything unfortunate or awful is "tragic". But what the fuck is "brave" about saving your beans? "In an extraordinary display of skills, presence of mind and composure": yeah.

    There are a fuckload of reasons to admire her feat. Braveness isn't one.

    1. Re:"bravely"? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Agreed. There's far too much idiotic hyperbole in reporting these days - she was doing her job and if she didn't do it they'd all be dead including her. Its like everyone is "brave" for fighting [insert potentially terminal disease here]. If I had one I'd do my best to fight it, thats not brave , its self preservation!

    2. Re:"bravely"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Such language is typically used in these situations, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining when it's a male pilot involved. Pretty much every story on US flight 1549 called Sully Sullenberger "brave" and "heroic" for landing safely on the Hudson without engines. "Brave" is defined as "ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage". I'd say it fits.

      Of course you could complain about it for a different reason here; the tone could be taken as being rather condescending, as in "she's female, yet she managed not to panic like a girl, how brave!" I don't think that's how it was meant, but it could be taken that way.

    3. Re:"bravely"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's training and professionalism. The list of pilots who panicked in an emergency situation is longer than you'd want it to be. It's OK to praise people for doing their job well, especially when it means life or death for themselves too. Doing the right thing under these circumstances is hard.

    4. Re:"bravely"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't care about the Brave, but defiantly skillful, professional, composed under pressure. Exactly what I would want in a pilot commanding a plane I am a passenger on.

    5. Re:"bravely"? by pots · · Score: 2

      So what would have been the cowardly variant? Crashing the plane?

      Possibly. The cowardly variant might have involved giving up in the face of adversity, or panicking, and either of those things could have resulted in a crash. But not necessarily. She could have cowardly landed the plane safely, crouching down in her chair, covering her face and peeking at the gauges through the cracks in her fingers.

    6. Re:"bravely"? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Bravery is where you have a choice whether to put yourself in a dangerous situation and you do so knowing your life may be at risk. When you have NO choice in the matter its not bravery , its simply being in a situation you do your best to get out of.

  4. Re:Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you have been on a flight with *REAL* turbulence; the type where if you are not seated and wearing a belt you are going to be smashed like a rag doll off the ceiling and couple of seconds later the floor of the plane you wear your seat belt on a plane for every second it is possible to do so.

    Perhaps living in europe where wearing seat belts are compulsory by law in a car we are more used to wearing restraining belts for long periods of time.

    Regardless not wearing a seat belt while seated on a plane is a pointless risk to take in my view.

  5. Re:Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It interferes with their freedom.

    yes, it makes it harder for them to draw their gun

  6. I am not sure what think bravely means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Eh, "bravely" means exactly what we get from hearing the pilot in her interaction with air traffic control. According to the dictionary brave is someone: ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage. So, she definitely seemed ready and showed courage (presence of mind and composure as you yourself say) in the face of danger.

    Brave does not mean removing the headphone jack from a phone ("dick move" is more appropriate), brave does not mean jumping in the flames for fun ("reckless" is more appropriate).

    I was impressed by that audio, the air traffic guy seemed much more upset when he started hearing about parts of the plane missing etc than the pilot. If she was not brave, her voice would either start braking or show panick, and the outcome of the ordeal might not have been as favorable for the passengers.

  7. Uncontained Engine Failures Happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    > These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body.

    This statement is factually wrong.

    When an uncontained engine failure happens - and they do happen - fragments of the blade can travel in any direction. It is random. In this case it looks like a piece went through the window. In that case, it is lucky no passengers were killed by a fragment.

    If you want to read just how badly a plane can be damaged by an uncontained engine failure, read up on what happened to QF32:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

    To give you an idea of how bad it was, the A380 has redundant cabling for controlling engines, etc, and fragments from the engine explosion took out both primary and secondary paths. It is a amazing that plane landed. And if the pictures are anything to go by in this scenario, the plane may also have suffered damage to control surfaces or wiring that also hampered flying the aircraft.

  8. Re:Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? by Entrope · · Score: 2

    Every US flight I've been on in the last 10 years strongly encourages passengers to keep their seat belts buckled whenever they are seated, specifically because of the risk of turbulence. I haven't done a scientific study, but I think most passengers do stay buckled up. The most frequent exceptions would be pre-school-aged children, and sometimes their parents.

  9. I don't understand the damage by ThomasD3 · · Score: 2

    When you look at the photo: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/da... It looks like a single blade is missing. If the blade breaks and flies to the cabin, like a dagger, ripping things on the way, I can understand. But how did the whole front cowling get ripped in all directions? or did the wind rip pieces after the structure was damaged?

  10. Re:Q reported there would be a fatality today by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well of course he knows. Q is omnipotent. I'm just puzzled why he's here in 2018 instead of messing with Starfleet officers in the future.

    It's because Nero changed future history, and Picard is now (or rather will be) the sexy counsellor on the USS GaySulu.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  11. Re:Lies, all lies. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    You must be new here, but actually there is an article attached to this story.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. Re: Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're using an extreme example.

    That's how we pass crazy and extreme laws. "If it save just one kids life..."

  13. Tammie Jo Shults by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ex-Navy F-18 pilot.

    Nothing teachers you about staying calm like landing on a pitching deck at night...in the rain and high winds.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  14. Re:Nightmare at 20,000 feet by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

    Indeed, it has since been proven both mathematically and experimentally that it’s physically impossible for Shatner to act, yet here he is doing it.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  15. Re:Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? by WhiplashII · · Score: 2

    As a pilot: my CFI told me it wasn't really turbulence until your head hit the ceiling with your seatbelt still on.

    Then that kept happening to me! (I am a lot taller than him...)

    --
    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;