Southwest Airplane Develops Hole in Fuselage

[BoomerD]

http://www.kcra.com/news/27405181/detail.html

There's a Muthafuckin Hole in the Muthafuckin Airplane!!

Fortunately, the pilot was able to land safely...but I have no doubt...bricks were shat!

http://www.kcra.com/slideshow/news/27405353/detail.html

Apparently, when the plane got to 30,000 feet, (about 18 minutes into the flight) there was an "explosion" and a 6 foot long hole developed in the fuselage...

Pretty interesting stuff.
I remember the Aloha Airlines jet that went through a similar...but more disastrous episode in 1988...

 

[IronWing]

That must be where the fares made their exit.

 

[Spikesoldier]

owned probably one of the earlier model 737's they use

 

[Kadarin]

Yeah, on that Aloha flight I think a stewardess got blown out of the plane (and if I remember correctly, sucked into the jet.)

Edit: After reading the Wikipedia article on the subject, there is no mention of her getting sucked into the jet. Still pretty brutal though, particularly the "alternate hypothesis".

 

[BoomerD]

owned probably one of the earlier model 737's they use

I think I read the jet was from 1996.

 

[davmat787]

owned probably one of the earlier model 737's they use

Oh please don't start this FUD. I will fly on SWA oldest airplane any day with their youngest Captain and FO, and maybe even their ugliest FA's. SWA flies 737's exclusively (well, a few 717's were aquired when they bought another airline) and excel at maintenance with the 737. Hell, they buy enough of them to hold design sway with Boeing.

What about the fact that they were able to handle a rapid decompression from FL 300 just fine? And the Aloha incident was caused by the unique conditions of Aloha. Tons of daily cycles due to short intra island flights in a humid salty environment. This is well understood now, just is about every other major incident and steps have been taken to ensure this does not happen again.

If only ALL other forms of transportation could be as safe! Go look at the stats! :awe:

Also, age is not as important for an airframe as is how many cycles it has on it. That said I don't think most people realize just how thin the aluminum fuselage is that is separating them from the outside. They make the windows and walls look all thick yet it is really the outer skin matters. Go check out how thin a fuselage really is if you want to get all freaked out.

I am just an aviation geek and photog, SkyKing is an actual pilot and could probably add more.

 

[davmat787]

If anyone is interested, you can see the flight path here where they did a maneuver to (most likely) quickly lose altitude and perhaps dump fuel, as they divert to Yuma. Original destination was Sacramento (SMF).

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA812/history/20110401/2225Z/KPHX/KSMF

 

[paulney]

Good job by the pilot and FAs.
This is the second hole in the fuselage incident in two weeks. Last week the hole was noticed on a pre-flight inspection by the pilot. Different airline though.

 

[l0cke]

Won't stop me from flying SWA, and anyone who is stopped by it is stupid.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah, on that Aloha flight I think a stewardess got blown out of the plane (and if I remember correctly, sucked into the jet.)

Edit: After reading the Wikipedia article on the subject, there is no mention of her getting sucked into the jet. Still pretty brutal though, particularly the "alternate hypothesis".

Pressure vessel engineer Matt Austin has proposed an alternate hypothesis to explain the disintegration of the fuselage of Flight 243.[7][8] This explanation postulates that initially the fuselage failed as intended and opened a 10" square vent. As the cabin air escaped at over 700 mph, flight attendant C.B. Lansing became wedged in the vent instead of being immediately thrown clear of the aircraft. The blockage would have immediately created a pressure spike in the escaping air, a fluid hammer, which tore the jet apart. The NTSB recognizes this hypothesis, but the board does not share the conclusion and maintains its original finding that the fuselage failed at multiple points at once. Former NTSB investigator Brian Richardson, who led the NTSB study of Flight 243, believes the fluid hammer explanation deserves further study.[8]

Yikes.

 

[davmat787]

Good job by the pilot and FAs.
This is the second hole in the fuselage incident in two weeks. Last week the hole was noticed on a pre-flight inspection by the pilot. Different airline though.

That was most likely caused by a bullet. Different airline, different model too FWIW.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/03/29/north.carolina.plane.hole/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[Spikesoldier]

Oh please don't start this FUD. I will fly on SWA oldest airplane any day with their youngest Captain and FO, and maybe even their ugliest FA's. SWA flies 737's exclusively (well, a few 717's were aquired when they bought another airline) and excel at maintenance with the 737. Hell, they buy enough of them to hold design sway with Boeing.

What about the fact that they were able to handle a rapid decompression from FL 300 just fine? And the Aloha incident was caused by the unique conditions of Aloha. Tons of daily cycles due to short intra island flights in a humid salty environment. This is well understood now, just is about every other major incident and steps have been taken to ensure this does not happen again.

If only ALL other forms of transportation could be as safe! Go look at the stats! :awe:

Also, age is not as important for an airframe as is how many cycles it has on it. That said I don't think most people realize just how thin the aluminum fuselage is that is separating them from the outside. They make the windows and walls look all thick yet it is really the outer skin matters. Go check out how thin a fuselage really is if you want to get all freaked out.

I am just an aviation geek and photog, SkyKing is an actual pilot and could probably add more.

so i guess relative to other airlines, swa's business model of short to medium haul multiple flights a day causes it to have more cycles, especially of their older planes?

 

[SonicIce]

probably an aprils fools joke

 

[davmat787]

so i guess relative to other airlines, swa's business model of short to medium haul multiple flights a day causes it to have more cycles, especially of their older planes?

Not really, no. SWA operates well within design parameters of the 737. If I read what you are getting at vis a vis Aloha, their flights are/were much shorter than SWA. Not trying to sound like an ass, but compare a route map of intra island Hawaiian flights vs. SWA. Also route planning is very complicated, usually taking into account a balance of cycles, fight time/length, where it is on maintenance schedule (D check next or just came off one?), etc so that one airframe is not always routed say LAX-PHX 10 times a day, and another SEA-MIA-SEA once a day. Well, SWA does not fly SEA-MIA, I have flown this on Alaska on a 737-900, but you get the idea.

SWA has a very large route structure for your average 737 operator I would bet, given the size of the US combined with how many airports they serve.

 

[LTC8K6]

If anyone is interested, you can see the flight path here where they did a maneuver to (most likely) quickly lose altitude and perhaps dump fuel, as they divert to Yuma. Original destination was Sacramento (SMF).

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA812/history/20110401/2225Z/KPHX/KSMF

737, like many airliners, has no fuel dump capability.

 

[davmat787]

probably an aprils fools joke

Then the feds don't have a sense of humor. See link below for the actual flight path diversion.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA812/history/20110401/2225Z/KPHX/KSMF

 

[davmat787]

737, like many airliners, has no fuel dump capability.

Interesting, thanks for the info. I thought the classics did, but wrong. It looks like the actual requirement for fuel dumping capability is if the max takeoff weight exceeds 125% of the max landing weight. So only for the birds with really long legs. I know the QANTAS A380 dumped fuel when they had the uncontained engine failure. FTR, I did qualify with a "(most likely)" and a "perhaps" as I doubted the fuel load for a PHX-MSF flight would require anywhere near the fuel that would require dumping.

EDIT: just did some reading, even the 125% number isn't hard and fast. The actual number will vary on a whole slew of factors, here is a snip from another site:

On 09/29/1968, FAR 25.1001 was amended to read:

"Sec. 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system.

(b) The turbine engine powered airplane must have a fuel jettisoning system installed that meets the
requirements of this section unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of
Secs. 25.119 and 25.121(d) at the weight specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[Bignate603]

so i guess relative to other airlines, swa's business model of short to medium haul multiple flights a day causes it to have more cycles, especially of their older planes?

Any airline is going to have planes that accumulate a high number of cycles depending on the route. Fatigue happens, it's the bane of airframes. A panel blew out, but the fracture didn't propagate. Planes are designed to fail in small ways to keep it from growing into a catastrophic failure. This one looks like it did exactly like it was supposed to. What worries me more is the part in the story that says some people including a flight attendant passed out because they couldn't get oxygen through their masks.

 

[LTC8K6]

Interesting, thanks for the info. I thought the classics did, but wrong. It looks like the actual requirement for fuel dumping capability is if the max takeoff weight exceeds 125% of the max landing weight. So only for the birds with really long legs. I know the QANTAS A380 dumped fuel when they had the uncontained engine failure. FTR, I did qualify with a "(most likely)" and a "perhaps" as I doubted the fuel load for a PHX-MSF flight would require anywhere near the fuel that would require dumping.

EDIT: just did some reading, even the 125% number isn't hard and fast. The actual number will vary on a whole slew of factors, here is a snip from another site:

On 09/29/1968, FAR 25.1001 was amended to read:

"Sec. 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system.

(b) The turbine engine powered airplane must have a fuel jettisoning system installed that meets the
requirements of this section unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of
Secs. 25.119 and 25.121(d) at the weight specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

The fuel dumping is not because the plane is too heavy to land with full tanks, it's for the fire hazard. If you can't dump, you circle and burn it off.

Airliners are certified to land with full tanks and full pax/cargo load should that be necessary. It would be a hard landing and would trigger inspections of the airframe and gear.

 

[davmat787]

The fuel dumping is not because the plane is too heavy to land with full tanks, it's for the fire hazard. If you can't dump, you circle and burn it off.

Airliners are certified to land with full tanks and full pax/cargo load should that be necessary. It would be a hard landing and would trigger inspections of the airframe and gear.

From what I read, the QANTAS A380 dumped fuel to get below max landing weight. Are you saying this is not the case, and they dumped fuel only for fire safety reasons? After an uncontained engine failure/fire, I would think they dumped to get below max weight so they could land as soon as possible, AS WELL as to ensure the minimum amount of fuel is on board during the landing for fire safety reasons as you cite.

Been in a test airframe with water tanks for weight to test this scenario at BFI. Was not in it for flying, just had an opportunity before they sent her down to Edwards for testing. Thanks for the info and clarifications/corrections too. Are you in the aviation industry, perhaps a chemtrail tank installer? I noticed a user with the same name on a.net, I have quite a bit of BFI photos on there.

 

[Goosemaster]

I like how it rolls off the tongue...

"local home develops rapid oxidation issues - conflagration video at 11"
"local man develops non-contagious road rash - graft politician weighs in - video at 11"
"local kitten rescue develops canine encroachment - teethe video at 11"
"airline heavyweight Southwest develops vertical market problems - on-air interview at 11"

 

[LTC8K6]

You get rid of fuel if you have time and altitude to do so. If not, you land and do the heavy landing checks. You aren't always going to have time to get rid of fuel. You don't want to land above the normal MLW, but you can.

I'm just an airplane nut and that is me on A.Net.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/AERO_Q307_article3.pdf

 

[Bignate603]

Yeah, on that Aloha flight I think a stewardess got blown out of the plane (and if I remember correctly, sucked into the jet.)

Edit: After reading the Wikipedia article on the subject, there is no mention of her getting sucked into the jet. Still pretty brutal though, particularly the "alternate hypothesis".

If you think that alternate hypothesis is brutal look up United Airlines Flight 811. The sort of stuff that happened on that flight will give you nightmares.

Mae Sapolu, a flight-attendant in the Business-Class cabin, was almost pulled out of the plane, but was seen by passengers and fellow crew clinging to a seat leg; they were able to pull her to safety inside the cabin, although she was severely injured.

NTSB reports found human remains in the fan blades of Number 3 engine, bringing a cold comfort that some of the victims died almost instantly as they were pulled out of the plane.

 

[davmat787]

One of the reasons why you should always have your seatbelt fastened.