It turns out that the doubters who have commented on “Southwest 1380: think about the flight attendants” have come up with something more interesting than what any journalists have found: National Airlines Flight 27. See Wikipedia and AviationSafetyNetwork for details on this 1971 uncontained engine failure on a DC-10. From ASN:
National Airlines Flight 27 departed Houston for Las Vegas and climbed to FL390. Suddenly the No. 3 engine fan assembly disintegrated and fragments penetrated the fuselage the Nos. 1 and 2 engine nacelles, and the right wing area. As a result, the cabin depressurized and one cabin window, which was struck by a fragment of the fan assembly, separated from the fuselage. The passenger who was sitting next to that window was forced through the opening and ejected from the aircraft. The flightcrew initiated an emergency descent, and the aircraft landed safely at Albuquerque International Airport 19 minutes after [the] engine failed.
From Wikipedia:
One passenger, G.F. Gardner of Beaumont, Texas,[4] was partially forced into the opening made by a failed cabin window, after it too was struck by engine fragments. He was temporarily retained in that position by his seatbelt. “Efforts to pull the passenger back into the airplane by another passenger were unsuccessful, and the occupant of seat 17H was forced entirely through the cabin window.”[5]
The flight crew initiated an emergency descent, and the aircraft was landed safely at Albuquerque International Sunport 19 minutes after the engine failed. 115 passengers and 12 crew members exited the aircraft by using the evacuation slides. Of those, 24 people were treated for smoke inhalation, ear problems, and minor abrasions. The plane was repaired and was later flown by Pan Am (as Clipper Meteor).
This was a more serious incident than Southwest 1380 due to the higher altitude (39,000′ versus 32,500′; time of useful consciousness is much less) and the fact that the passenger who was killed did not remain stuck within (therefore blocking) the window.
Another difference is that the flight crew, rather than being celebrated as heroic, was castigated for monkeying with the auto-throttle system.
To the extent that anyone might doubt the news reports on Southwest 1380, I read this 1971 story as confirmatory. It seems like more or less the same chain of events started by the same root cause (piece of engine comes flying out). But, interestingly, the 1971 incident is ready by the doubters as confirming their doubts.
Related:
- United Airlines 232, where the uncontained engine failure destroyed the DC-10’s flight controls and the flight crew nonetheless was able to save 185 people.
- Boeing 767 loses engine 400 feet after takeoff, but the pilots aren’t heroes (newsworthy because Leonardo DiCaprio was in the back)
- United Airlines 811, a 747 whose cargo door blew out over the Pacific Ocean and “The debris ejected from the airplane during the explosive decompression damaged the Number 3 and 4 engines … The N1 reading of engine number 4 soon fell to almost zero, its EGT reading was high, and it was emitting flames, so they shut it down as well. … The flaps could only be partially deployed as a result of damage sustained following the decompression. This necessitated a higher than normal landing speed of around 190–200 knots.” (the pilots did not become media stars, however)
chuck p
I hope you receive this. I did live in Grand Prairie, Tx. for eight years and my son lives in Texas now (also John Talley). Sorry for the mistake I made on the flight number. It is 27.
The fogging only happens with rapid decompression such as a window blowing out.
I find it unusual none of the passengers mentioned it. I only mentioned the National
flight because it sounded like they copied the story. Please get back to me if I am the
right John Talley your referring to.
Interesting note. The first info for Southwest 1380 was that Riordon was in
row 17 and later changed to row 14. The man on National 27 was also in
row 17. That’s some coincidence. I also noticed you used Wikipedia story
instead of Aviation Safety Network which didn’t mention the man on National
was tried to be pulled back into the cabin. I worked on the repairs on the National plane and at the time there was no mention of this fact.
If you can’t figure out this hoax based on passenger comments alone your
ability to reason is corrupt. Buy the way the southwest pilot was out of uniform.
Americans in 1971 were skinnier. Nowadays Americans no longer fit thru the cabin windows. So there’s one advantage to the obesity epidemic.
“They [the flight crew] had been wondering where the system took its engine power readings from and to see if it was the N1 tachometer readout “the flight engineer pulled the three N1 tachometer [circuit breakers]” and then adjusted the autothrottle setting.”
How many disasters over the years have been caused by such unnecessary experiments?
i think your last post on the southwest incident was your most commented on post. Your facebook post on the same topic seemed to get lots of comments too!
I’m just amazed you endulged the lunatic(s) in the comments section for so long. I know you get a kick out of it as it led you to window patent search etc. but still…
I still find it fascinaing some people regard watching youtube conspiracy videos as research then claim everyone who doesn’t agree with them is suffering from cognitive dissonance. Because it couldn’t possibly be knowledge, logic or actual research that led to an opposing view.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a video or experience of rapid depressurisation in actual flight or just ground tests? I’m wondering whether dry airconditioned air during flight might explain the “missing fog problem”.
wat? do I need to go back and reread the prior post?
there are doubters? doubting what?
was jennifer riordan a crisis actor?
holy shit!
FV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression says that you need “explosive decompression” to get fog inside the aircraft. Perhaps a partially blocked blown-out window 10×14″ in size wouldn’t dump the cabin pressure in the 0.5 seconds or less required for “explosive”.
If you search for “explosive decompression” and Boeing you get results such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811
(truly an ugly incident that required landing with two engines shut down at 200 knots; it was 1989 and the flight crew therefore was unable to obtain hero status) where a huge cargo door blew out.
If you look for videos on YouTube where they try to replicate explosive decompression in the lab there is a bit of fog, but it is temporary and you might not notice it if there were also a loud bang and other distractions. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeJlewaU7s at about 3:43.
philg
As stated earlier I have personally pressurized hundreds of aircraft and the
faster you decompress the more fog you get but you get enough just using
the out flow valve to make it so you can’t see your hand in front of your face.
The out flow valve outlet is not as big as a passenger window. Air enters the
cabin at max and is maintained by regulating the out put. The fog starts to disappear at the ceiling as it disappears the fog stays level as it drops from the ceiling. They have high pressure out flow valves that work on differential
pressure to prevent over pressurizing. there is also and emergency dump
to release pressure on the ground so the cabin doors will open. The stories
the actors told didn’t add up and were inconsistent to one another to be
believed.
John: At what altitude were you doing these pressurization and depressurization tests? At 32,500′ there is almost no moisture in the atmosphere (the source of what was compressed and pushed into the cabin to begin with). Also, I don’t see how fog could persist, assuming that the moisture comes from humans and drinks, etc., within the cabin. A window blowing out doesn’t stop fresh compressed air from coming into the cabin continuously from the still-running engine (maybe the pilots would have eventually gotten to a checklist procedure for shutting down a pack, but not immediately after a window failure).
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html
shows that the maximum water content of air at -25C is only 1/26th the max at +20C. ISA (standard atmosphere) temp at 32,00′ is -48C. Unless you go through a cloud I don’t know where you’d get enough moisture up in the flight levels (above 18,000′) to create a persistent fog inside an aircraft.
The stories of 148 people were inconsistent and therefore you don’t believe them? I would say that 148 people telling a consistent story is an occasion for disbelief! Even the same person will tell a story about the same event in different ways at differen times and with different facts (to some extent).
toucan sam “post on the southwest incident was your most commented on post.”
By number of words it may be the longest comment thread. Some of those comments were, well does anyone have a good tl;dr.
But for number of comments, there was a thread a bunch of years ago that I believe exceeded it. If I recall it had something to do with teaching kids to program. At least I think that is what my contribution was. I dont comment that much and I was interested that I had made a, I thought, useful addition to what was probably the longest thread on this blog.
[ My comment was that the way my son started was with html at a fairly young age and that it worked well. Incidentally he will be getting a masters in CS from Stanford in a few weeks.]
Not decompression-related: When you said DC-10, engine, and throttle, I thought for sure you were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232#Attempts_to_control_plane, where some pilot/heroes managed to keep a badly compromised aircraft under some measure of control using only the throttles in order to make a crash landing at an airport. (Even NASA was impressed https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910019877.pdf )
@ wally w
I think the longest commented post was the “Why don’t I know any single men?” something like 112+ comments. I still remember that the comment links ‘broke’ after 50 comments on that one.
Speaking of pressure. Why is it that sometimes my ears hurt terribly upon the descent on some flights and not on others? Putting aside nasal congestion and other personal issues, Is it that some airports require quicker descent towards the runway than others? Or is this really just up to the pilot and ATC? Or is it that long-haul flights are done at higher altitudes than shorter flights (eg. 2 hours?). Or could it be the model/type of aircraft? Which factor is the one that contributes the most? Sorry for my ignorance.
philg
To answer your question on the altitude I pressure tested the aircraft was
done mostly in Long Beach, Ca. and it is pretty close to sea level. That said,
although the plane was in a low moisture area your putting lots more cubic
feet of air in the cabin to maintain the higher pressure so the moisture
should be some what greater than out side atmosphere. My garage air compressor puts out lots of water. If that makes a difference I can’t say for
sure.
I am basing my opinion as to the validity of this story on the info in the videos, the passenger statements and the pilot and tower recordings. There is way too much wrong with this incident then there is right. Example no blood inside or
out side of aircraft. Passenger took the picture of the seat and broken window
area upon departing the plane. Several passengers started there was lots of
blood everywhere. There were statements made about the damage to the
fuselage but I could find none. The wing slats showed some minor damage.
The window frame hole showed no signs of damage either. There was no mention of someone from the cockpit going to check on the damage. Pilot
stated someone said a part was broken and someone went out.
That would’ve been done first. Foaming the ground under the damaged engine had to be for show. Pilot stated there was no fire in the engine. I saw no signs of panic from the passengers as stated. Why was the plane on white pavement and the tug came and towed it to another area where it was on black top and then showed the foam. And lastly why no picture from anyone showing the damaged engine while they were still in flight.
John: It is a good question as to why more people didn’t snap photos while they were riding around during the “abnormal” single engine approach and landing.
“There was no mention of someone from the cockpit going to check on the damage.” Who would have gone? In the old days there would be a three-person flight crew (pilot flying, pilot monitoring, flight engineer). In a modern airliner there are only two pilots and they have to both be up front unless you’re up at a cruise altitude and everything is going perfectly. The SW 1380 crew essentially began their approach and landing as soon as they finished their descent to a comfortable unpressurized altitude.
But I think you answered the question about the fog. You were in warm sea-level air and actually near the ocean! METAR at KLGB right now is temperature 28 and dewpoint 10 (Celsius). So it is dry, but nothing like the spread at KPHX of 33/-7. And Phoenix is nowhere near as dry as air at FL320. If the Long Beach air were to be cooled by 14C it would become a dense cloud (compare to 40C in Phoenix!).