Quote(Reuters) - Southwest Airlines grounded 81 aircraft from its Boeing 737 fleet for inspection after a gaping hole in the fuselage forced one of its planes to make emergency landing in Arizona on Friday, the company said on Saturday.
Southwest (LUV.N) and Boeing (BA.N) engineers will inspect the aircraft to try to determine the cause, Southwest said in a statement. Passengers heard a loud noise and suddenly saw a hole about mid-cabin.
Southwest Airlines is working with the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration on the ground in Arizona to determine the cause of a sudden drop in cabin pressure on Southwest Flight 812 from Phoenix to Sacramento on Friday, airline officials said.
The flight, with 118 passengers and five crew members on board, landed safely at the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, a military base, with a hole in the top of the aircraft, a Southwest spokeswoman said in a statement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/02/airlines-southwest-idUSN0219045520110402
The fortunate thing is the plane had not reached cruising altitude. At that time of day flights are usually taking off to the west so they are already pointed towards Yuma somewhat.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/04/02/20110402arizona-southwest-flight-diverted-hole-brk.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/04/02/20110402arizona-southwest-flight-diverted-hole-brk.html)
Great, and I'm flying Southwest Wed
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 02, 2011, 01:50:43 PM
The fortunate thing is the plane had not reached cruising altitude. At that time of day flights are usually taking off to the west so they are already pointed towards Yuma somewhat.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/04/02/20110402arizona-southwest-flight-diverted-hole-brk.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/04/02/20110402arizona-southwest-flight-diverted-hole-brk.html)
Good find.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 02, 2011, 01:50:43 PM
The fortunate thing is the plane had not reached cruising altitude. At that time of day flights are usually taking off to the west so they are already pointed towards Yuma somewhat.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/04/02/20110402arizona-southwest-flight-diverted-hole-brk.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/04/02/20110402arizona-southwest-flight-diverted-hole-brk.html)
Are you sure about that? I heard today that they
were at cruise at 34000 feet. The pilot had to descend rapidly to 11000 to stave off apoxia in the cabin.
EDIT: CNN reports it was 36000 feet and they were 35 minutes into the flight. That's likely right around the time you'd reach cruise altitude.
Local TV news just said they were at 36,000 and descended to 11,000 in 4 minutes. That's a pretty good descent rate considering they had a hole in the fuselage. No biggie if the plane were normal.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 02, 2011, 06:29:41 PM
Local TV news just said they were at 36,000 and descended to 11,000 in 4 minutes. That's a pretty good descent rate considering they had a hole in the fuselage. No biggie if the plane were normal.
Yeah, about 6000 fpm! That's pretty steep for a descent when a regular descent runs between 1500 and 2500 fpm.
Quote from: Hoss on April 02, 2011, 05:47:55 PM
Are you sure about that? I heard today that they were at cruise at 34000 feet. The pilot had to descend rapidly to 11000 to stave off apoxia in the cabin.
EDIT: CNN reports it was 36000 feet and they were 35 minutes into the flight. That's likely right around the time you'd reach cruise altitude.
I was taking an unscientific guess, going by the time of depature to the time of landing, and I may have missed that they had reached 36k feet.
Quote from: Hoss on April 02, 2011, 06:46:47 PM
Yeah, about 6000 fpm! That's pretty steep for a descent when a regular descent runs between 1500 and 2500 fpm.
If the gaping hole didn't scare the smile out of you that nose-dive sure would!
Quote from: Conan71 on April 05, 2011, 06:28:09 PM
If the gaping hole didn't scare the smile out of you that nose-dive sure would!
No kidding..like the first time your FI is showing you how to do an emergency descent in a Cessna/Piper (where you throttle back to idle and notch the flaps...typically about 2000fpm, which is pretty extreme in an ASEL ...that's pilot geek speak for Airplane, Single Engine Land..in other words, a little two or four seater).
Quote from: Hoss on April 05, 2011, 09:54:49 PM
No kidding..like the first time your FI is showing you how to do an emergency descent in a Cessna/Piper (where you throttle back to idle and notch the flaps...typically about 2000fpm, which is pretty extreme in an ASEL ...that's pilot geek speak for Airplane, Single Engine Land..in other words, a little two or four seater).
A Cessna 150 with 40 degrees of flap out and an idling engine comes down pretty quickly. If I remember, I'll check the rate next time I fly it. I'm usually pretty slow, going for angle of descent more than rate of descent.
A twin with the props flat (levers forward) and the engines back is really impressive. Two airbrakes (the props) instead of just one. I don't remember the rate but it was fast. It's not good for the engine cooling (too fast) so it's not something one does on a regular basis.
The fastest sustained rate of descent I remember flying was a race to the pattern with my brother in another sailplane. We had some afternoon thunderboomers developing while we were at about 7000 feet above the ground. The plane I was in had terminal velocity flaps About 10% of the wing area could be put down at 90 degrees to the airflow. With full stick forward, it felt like I was going straight down. The airspeed indicated 50 knots, about 5000 ft per minute. It wasn't actually straight down but we both beat the weather. Kind of fun really but normally it would have been a waste of altitude.
I always hate it when pieces of the plane leave while in flight. I'm thinking they are there for a reason, and if that reason was good enough for Boeing, it works for me, too.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 06, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
I always hate it when pieces of the plane leave while in flight. I'm thinking they are there for a reason, and if that reason was good enough for Boeing, it works for me, too.
;D
Quote from: Hoss on April 05, 2011, 09:54:49 PM
No kidding..like the first time your FI is showing you how to do an emergency descent in a Cessna/Piper (where you throttle back to idle and notch the flaps...
Once he's got the propeller going slow enough to where you can visually count the revolutions, he has you pull the stick back until that bicycle-horn stall alarm goes off, then, wow... That's a memory that will stick with me all my life, which, at the time, seemed just about finished...
Quote from: patric on April 06, 2011, 11:01:16 AM
Once he's got the propeller going slow enough to where you can visually count the revolutions, he has you pull the stick back until that bicycle-horn stall alarm goes off, then, wow... That's a memory that will stick with me all my life, which, at the time, seemed just about finished...
All that stuff is fun.....unless you are too close to the ground.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 06, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
I always hate it when pieces of the plane leave while in flight. I'm thinking they are there for a reason, and if that reason was good enough for Boeing, it works for me, too.
I was told several extra pieces were designed in for just such an instance.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 06, 2011, 12:08:57 PM
All that stuff is fun.....unless you are too close to the ground.
Hearing the stall horn is way cool if you're on the flare. Means you've got your timing and speed down properly if you're about to grease the landing. Always loved hearing that weak horn sound just as I got my little jolt when the mains touched.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 06, 2011, 12:09:53 PM
I was told several extra pieces were designed in for just such an instance.
;D
I always like sitting over the wing. Not only do you get the best seats on the plane as far as leg room goes (SW, anyway), I always loved watching those wings flex and seeing the reaction of the non-aviation inclined when they saw it.
Back in 1988 a huge chunk of a 737 roof came off in flight, it's funny that only the 737's seem to have problems with the roof panels. Must be the way it's designed.
Quote from: sauerkraut on April 06, 2011, 05:37:08 PM
Back in 1988 a huge chunk of a 737 roof came off in flight, it's funny that only the 737's seem to have problems with the roof panels. Must be the way it's designed.
There you are. I was wondering about you.
Quote from: Townsend on April 06, 2011, 05:49:38 PM
There you are. I was wondering about you.
Five months of hibernation wasn't long enough.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 06, 2011, 05:52:41 PM
Five months of hibernation wasn't long enough.
Nope, the meds didn't work...nor the therapy.
Quote from: sauerkraut on April 06, 2011, 05:37:08 PM
it's funny that only the 737's seem to have problems with the roof panels. Must be the way it's designed.
Nice though that "we" don't lose a plane and a bunch of passengers when it happens. It must be Boeing's experience building bombers during WWII.
Flew Delta last week. Still would rather fly Southwest, even with parts falling off.
Sounds like there is a difference between early and late 737. Apparently none of the late models have the problem while a few of the early ones have.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 06, 2011, 07:25:13 PM
Flew Delta last week. Still would rather fly Southwest, even with parts falling off.
Sounds like there is a difference between early and late 737. Apparently none of the late models have the problem while a few of the early ones have.
We still don't know if it's a design flaw or simply airframe stress from so many operations. With each of SW's planes getting around 8 takeoffs and landings a day, that's a lot more stress than planes on long-haul flights.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 07, 2011, 10:56:31 AM
We still don't know if it's a design flaw or simply airframe stress from so many operations. With each of SW's planes getting around 8 takeoffs and landings a day, that's a lot more stress than planes on long-haul flights.
Think it's time to start thinking about taking the 300s and 400s out of service. I know they have some newer 800s and 900s. It used to be you could tell from a distance by checking to see if they had winglets (the little upturn tips). But now many carriers are retrofitting the 300s and 400s with those because it is supposed to increase range by a little.
I think they still had some 100's and 200's in the fleet up to about 1995 at least, if not later. Every now and then you will see one of those being operated by a podunk regional or freighter op with the dinky engines. Were those JT-8's?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 07, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
I think they still had some 100's and 200's in the fleet up to about 1995 at least, if not later. Every now and then you will see one of those being operated by a podunk regional or freighter op with the dinky engines. Were those JT-8's?
Yes, with the clamshell reversers on them. I always joked on landing that if one of the reversers didn't open the plane would make the hardest turn on record.
Nothing inherently wrong with an old plane if the design is good. See how many B-52s still around. And L1011.
There are fewer reinforcing straps of some sort on the older ones. If those could be retrofitted, the life might be extended a lot.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 06, 2011, 06:41:44 PM
Nice though that "we" don't lose a plane and a bunch of passengers when it happens. It must be Boeing's experience building bombers during WWII.
Nope the stewardes's get sucked out.....
Quote from: Breadburner on April 07, 2011, 02:17:44 PM
Nope the stewardes's get sucked out.....
Unfortunately a few persons were lost on the Hawaii flight. It's amazing anyone survived that sunroof.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 07, 2011, 02:04:51 PM
Nothing inherently wrong with an old plane if the design is good. See how many B-52s still around. And L1011.
There are fewer reinforcing straps of some sort on the older ones. If those could be retrofitted, the life might be extended a lot.
How about DC-3s? Still a few of them around too. Most of those older designs were way overdesigned, fortunately.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2011, 02:48:28 PM
How about DC-3s? Still a few of them around too. Most of those older designs were way overdesigned, fortunately.
A little Googling brings us this gem:
"Such limits are usually reserved for pressurised aircraft and some unpressurised British aircraft. Phoebus Apollo's Douglas DC-3 ZS-PAA has in excess of 100 000 hrs on the airframe (I don't know the exact amount (+- 109 000(?), but it is the highest time Dak around, and that at 135kts!). I believe the world record is Douglas DC-10 N221NW with 128 679 hours in the logbooks!"
http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53987
And who knows? There might be some undocumented DC-3's flying in Africa, South America, or Mexico which could have far more than 100,000 hours on the a/f
Quote from: Conan71 on April 07, 2011, 02:52:49 PM
A little Googling brings us this gem:
"Such limits are usually reserved for pressurised aircraft and some unpressurised British aircraft. Phoebus Apollo's Douglas DC-3 ZS-PAA has in excess of 100 000 hrs on the airframe (I don't know the exact amount (+- 109 000(?), but it is the highest time Dak around, and that at 135kts!). I believe the world record is Douglas DC-10 N221NW with 128 679 hours in the logbooks!"
Trying to inflate a fuselage like a balloon obviously puts additional stress on it. Aluminum does fatigue and lots of hours of vibration will add to the fatigue. Keep the stresses low enough and they will last a long, long time.
The 100 and 200s were decommissioned by most domestic carriers because they were INCREDIBLY loud. Like the DC-8. I could always tell the difference of which planes Southwest was flying in here because of the loudness. That and the 200s had the really long engine nacelles on them. Those JT8Ds were just loud as hell (unless they put the hush kits on them, which Southwest opted to just decommission IIRC).
Quote from: Hoss on April 07, 2011, 05:15:36 PM
The 100 and 200s were decommissioned by most domestic carriers because they were INCREDIBLY loud. Like the DC-8. I could always tell the difference of which planes Southwest was flying in here because of the loudness. That and the 200s had the really long engine nacelles on them. Those JT8Ds were just loud as hell (unless they put the hush kits on them, which Southwest opted to just decommission IIRC).
IIRC Southwest did install a number of the hush kits that were built by Nordam. I think a lot of airlines purchased those kits as a stop gap until those model 737 were retired.
Quote from: Hoss on April 06, 2011, 03:14:57 PM
Hearing the stall horn is way cool if you're on the flare. Means you've got your timing and speed down properly if you're about to grease the landing. Always loved hearing that weak horn sound just as I got my little jolt when the mains touched.
Some poor kid dropped a plane from about 10-15 ft. at Sundance in OKC this afternoon. Flared a little early I guess that or got a shear. I hate prop strikes almost as much as I hate Illinois Nazis.
I love DC-3. If I were to ever join Guido in Richville, that is one thing I would definitely buy.
B-17 is another favorite. Have a couple of friends who were B-17 pilots in WWII. Super guys. Incredible, actually. They have very strong emotions about the plane. Not sure it is exactly love, but sure ain't hate!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 07, 2011, 08:44:22 PM
I love DC-3. If I were to ever join Guido in Richville, that is one thing I would definitely buy.
B-17 is another favorite. Have a couple of friends who were B-17 pilots in WWII. Super guys. Incredible, actually. They have very strong emotions about the plane. Not sure it is exactly love, but sure ain't hate!
You don't have to be rich. Just fly to Columbia, cap a minor drug lord, and take his plane. Paying for the fuel is entirely another issue though.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 07, 2011, 08:48:24 PM
You don't have to be rich. Just fly to Columbia, cap a minor drug lord, and take his plane. Paying for the fuel is entirely another issue though.
Being able to buy a plane doesn't mean you will be able to keep it. Sometimes you can't afford to keep it even if it is given to you. Same for boat, car, etc.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2011, 10:07:34 PM
Being able to buy a plane doesn't mean you will be able to keep it. Sometimes you can't afford to keep it even if it is given to you. Same for boat, car, etc.
Especially keeping up with the annual maintenance and airworthy checks. Not quite the same as owning a car....
Quote from: Hoss on April 07, 2011, 10:38:44 PM
Especially keeping up with the annual maintenance and airworthy checks. Not quite the same as owning a car....
I was thinking about a boat big enough to need a slip at a marina and a car like Porsche, Vette, M3 BMW etc. I will give you that even the most humble airplane will be better maintained than most automobiles.
Two happiest days of a persons life - when they buy a boat. And when they sell it.
I'm guessing it is not quite the same for an airplane.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
Two happiest days of a persons life - when they buy a boat. And when they sell it.
I'm guessing it is not quite the same for an airplane.
Yeah that applies to planes and Harley-Davidson Servicars too.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
Two happiest days of a persons life - when they buy a boat. And when they sell it.
I'm guessing it is not quite the same for an airplane.
I don't know about the selling day, yet. Fun to buy if you can just say the money is just numbers on a piece of paper.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 08, 2011, 11:04:57 AM
I don't know about the selling day, yet. Fun to buy if you can just say the money is just numbers on a piece of paper.
And keep telling yourself that if you buy fuel at the marina.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 08, 2011, 11:11:02 AM
And keep telling yourself that if you buy fuel at the marina.
I haven't bought gas at the boat dock in, well a long time. When car gas was $.33/gal, boat gas on the Chesapeake was about $.45/gal. In Bimini, it was $.55/gal.
Did you see my link to Avgas prices?
My implication was that if you thought of the dollars spent on a plane, boat, etc as real money it would give you a heart attack. As long as the numbers come in faster than they go out, enjoy.