Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the rest-in-peace dept.

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.

20 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 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

  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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  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. 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..."

  7. 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.