Holed Southwest Airlines flight makes emergency landing

[Growler]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

don't touch the glass with your hand when you put it in. Im told oils from the skin mess with the bulb

also, all I'm saying is is that this isn't a normal occurance. Planes just don't rip open mid air. For an aircraft to fail like that isn't very common, and these things are designed with safeguards, and inspection intervals that are designed to occur before a problem like this happens. I don't get why you are defending SWA so much here. I don't want to assign blame to them...but I'm suspicious because they have put off airframe inspections before and had an accident very similar to this. After taking courses in aviation safety, and studying accidents therein You'd be surprised how many accidents have factors that occurred when the plane was being worked on in the shop. These Shops are often rushed, or pressured to skimp by the Management to save money....I would not be surprised this is the case.

Also, the plane flying so much has NOTHING to do with it and does not at all serve as an excuse. The more cycles and hours you fly, the more you need to work on the aircraft. Commercial carriers are required to fix their plane on an hour based system...when it reaches X number of flight time you need to look at it. There are also published Cycles for the airframe that will tell you when you need to look at the airframe. So no, I don't buy the whole "it's been used a lot" argument...because the System is DESIGNED to negate that issue.

Yeah, I know about the bulb glass; I've done this before.

I'm not saying that the issue isn't Southwest's fault - there's clearly safety issues in their past; there are with every airline. What I am saying is there are factors involved beyond which an airline can address, even due to skimpy maintenance. They've not had a major casualty incident yet. There's a reason for that that argues competence on the part of their maintenance people - with all the ups and downs and miles they're putting on these airframes, it has to be more than luck that they've not had major issues and high body counts.

The NTSB has come forward with news that there are indications of existing fatigue in the aircraft metal, so that settles that issue. Now the question will be, "How long was it a noticeable condition, and why was it not noticed?" I suspect that someone's going to lose a job at the very least.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Growler

The NTSB has come forward with news that there are indications of existing fatigue in the aircraft metal, so that settles that issue. Now the question will be, "How long was it a noticeable condition, and why was it not noticed?" I suspect that someone's going to lose a job at the very least.

the thing is...aircraft don't just suddenly break very often...It takes a while for cracks to get so severe that a 5x3 section blows out of the aircraft. I'd like the believe that nobody screwed up...but i doubt it. Again, I bet the shops were rushed on pretty complex inspection..and sadly the guys who were told "get this done fast or you're fired" are gonna be fired to save company face.

[GoldenRivet]

you know i sat in one of the planes one time when they were doing a pressurization test.

Its amazing that you can actually hear all the crunching metal and popping aluminum - sounds similar to a submarine going deep - during this test.

fact is that this is happening every time the airplane climbs and descends, hundreds of times per week, tens of thousands of times per year for the 15 year lifespan of the airplane in question.

think of the paperclip. bend it a little back and forth, just a little. It will take time to break but it eventually will break.

these airliners are the same way.

sure there are inspections in place to locate cracks and prevent these sorts of failures, and maintenance did in fact find an alarming number of stress cracks in the airframe of this particular aircraft last year.

no matter how rigid and detail oriented your maintenance program may be - these sorts of incidents are not 100% preventable. all you can do is reduce the likelihood of them occurring, but you will never reduce that likelihood to ZERO.

look back at the dehavilland comet - there were a couple of them IIRC that developed a nasty habit of disintegrating mid flight. the culprit... the window corners had too much pressure buildup during pressurized flight.

the solution: change the windows to a more rounded shape.

the FAA - depending on its findings - may release an Airworthiness Directive on the 737 specifically - which will require periodic inspection of specific places for a specific type of stress fracture, or perhaps they will release some blanket requirement for closer airframe inspections and reduced intervals for aircraft that fly in excess of 1,000 hours per year (1,000 hours is only used as an example number) but at the moment, thats all i would expect to see come of this.

at the moment, the NTSB is of the opinion that nothing was missed on an inspection that should have otherwise been caught.

[Growler]

And, on a similar note: >>LINK<<

GR - thanks for that note; I'd not had a chance to complete review the NTSBs statement(s) before I had to duck out for awhile.

Gimpy - that "get this done fast or its your job" was what I was referring to earlier when I added that there's reason to suspect FAA collusion with SWA not meeting inspection standards.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Growler

And, on a similar note: >>LINK<<

probably an outflow valve stuck open or something like that

Originally Posted by Growler

Gimpy - that "get this done fast or its your job" was what I was referring to earlier when I added that there's reason to suspect FAA collusion with SWA not meeting inspection standards.

Didnt southwest airlines' FAA liaison get in some deep kimchi over this a couple of years back?

here is a little history lesson for SWA http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=10179

we dont call them the low fare cattle car airline for nothing.

SWA is the wal mart of the airline industry IMHO

[Growler]

As to the SWA FAA liaison, I can't say - I haven't found any details on that story yet, but I've not been actively searching for the last few hours, so I can't honestly say I looked real hard.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

we dont call them the low fare cattle car airline for nothing.

SWA is the wal mart of the airline industry IMHO

Perhaps, but by and large, their safety record is the best in the industry, and they do get the job done. And unlike the Wal-Mart kool-aid kids, the folks from SWA that I've dealt with always seemed to be pretty dialed in to doing their jobs.

Might just be my experience, but I've always gotten good service from them. I can't say the same for other airlines I've dealt with. In that regard, they're what Wal-Mart wishes it was.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Growler

by and large, their safety record is the best in the industry, and they do get the job done. And unlike the Wal-Mart kool-aid kids, the folks from SWA that I've dealt with always seemed to be pretty dialed in to doing their jobs.

Might just be my experience, but I've always gotten good service from them. I can't say the same for other airlines I've dealt with. In that regard, they're what Wal-Mart wishes it was.

I have had much the same experience, i just enjoy ribbing SWA whenever i can.

i dont remember the liaison story... perhaps im wording it wrong, maybe it was a manager or inspector or something.

i seem to recall there being a stink about corroboration in maintenance issues before

[Growler]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I have had much the same experience, i just enjoy ribbing SWA whenever i can.

i dont remember the liaison story... perhaps im wording it wrong, maybe it was a manager or inspector or something.

i seem to recall there being a stink about corroboration in maintenance issues before

Goes back to the 08 incident, IIRC. I've found a couple of different secondary sources that speak of doubt in the FAA's enforcement of SWA's maintenance failures, right around the time of the $10.5M fine, but that fine and the consequent settlement seems to draw all the attention away from the FAA question.

[sharkbit]

The FAA just issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive forthe 737-300, -400, and -500 models in conjunction with an alert Service Bulletin from Boeing to do an eddy current inspection on the joint that failed. It looks like it needs to be done within 5 days or 20 days, depending on the number of cycles.

http://www.amtonline.com/publication...ion=1&id=13191

I found it amazing how much time the SWA aircraft had:
Over 38000 landings and over 48000 hours. The highest time aircraft we have where I work is a Lear 35 with almost 14000 hours and over 10000 landings, built in 1978. Airlines fly the **** out of their airplanes.

For non-aviation people here, Airworthiness Directives (AD's) are issued when the FAA finds a condition that exists on aircraft that seriously affects the airworthiness of the aircraft and need to be addressed. They are law(an extension of the FAR's-Federal Aviation Regulations) and an aircraft owner/operator must comply with them.

Like any government item, normal AD's take months before being issued. They usually have to go thru a lengthy process before becoming effective. The FAA can issue an Emergency AD, such as this one, pretty quickly when needed though. They can bypass a lot of the normal process. Many emergency AD's will immediately ground an aircraft. This one at least gives operators a little time if they haven't already complied with the Boeing Service Bulletin.
Normal AD's give a certain length of time to comply with them.

All aircraft, engines, props, and aircraft appliances have AD's issued against them. Some serious, some not so serious. They are in no way a gauge on how safe a particular model is or isn't.

[sharkbit]

Here's another article as well:
http://www.amtonline.com/publication...ion=1&id=13183

[Growler]

Thanks for the links, Sharkbit - I had a feeling another AD was going to be issued on this one. IIRC, there was one several years ago for the skin of the -300s that required most of them to replace it with a different installation method.

All of this said, while the scene was undoubtedly bad, the rip-stop straps in the installation did their job - the airframe held together for the flight crew to put in on the ground. That, in some small way, is a victory.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Growler

All of this said, while the scene was undoubtedly bad, the rip-stop straps in the installation did their job - the airframe held together for the flight crew to put in on the ground. That, in some small way, is a victory.

Yes, when you start designing for controlled failures, rather than catastrophic ones, you can usually provide operators time to avert or at least recover before some really bad happens.

[Gerald]

PASSENGERS fainted when a 5-foot hole opened in the roof of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 flying from Phoenix to Sacramento last week. The most frightening moment may have been when, as one passenger said, “You could look out and see blue sky.”

It was an unusual episode in an industry with a strong safety record. But that record might be hard to sustain: on the very day that Southwest’s Flight 812 was diverted to Yuma, Ariz., for an emergency landing, the House of Representatives passed a bill likely to make it more difficult to detect and prevent midair ruptures, metal fatigue and other serious flight risks.

The bill would cut $4 billion from the Federal Aviation Administration’s $37 billion budget. Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican who is the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, says the bill would streamline F.A.A. programs and promised the bill would “not negatively impact aviation safety.”

Such streamlining would probably mean reduction of F.A.A. staff, including safety inspectors. As it is, the agency has been short-staffed for years. According to the Government Accountability Office, 1,100 inspectors oversaw 81 airlines, 5,200 repair stations, and 625,000 pilots in 2006. A $4 billion cut will necessarily reduce the work force further. And it’s hard to imagine this will not diminish safety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/op...0mcgee.html?hp


Note: Update Record, April 9, 2011