Notebook
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,965
- Reaction score
- 765
- Points
- 188
News Holed Southwest Airlines flight makes emergency landing
- Thread starter Notebook
- Start date
JEL
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- in the cold Denmark
- Website
- www.jelstudio.dk
A close-up photo of the hole: http://twitpic.com/4fv02d
(Move your mouse over the image on twitpic to select 'view full size')
(Move your mouse over the image on twitpic to select 'view full size')
Last edited:
Turbinator
New member
Today's planes are built like plastic toys. The Boeing 787 takes that quite literally.
Scruce
Ad astra per aspera
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,409
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
And the parts are stuck together with Pritt Stick.
Turbinator
New member
Lucky for them that the wire bundle didn't get cut... else I wonder what problems they would have had... I don't remember where the control wires run on the 737, but I think that's where they are routed on the 747...
Turbinator
New member
Mounting any mission critical wiring along the containment barrier seems like baaaad idea.
It's like begging for trouble.
It's like begging for trouble.
According to the wiki article for this accident( [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_812"]Southwest Airlines Flight 812 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ), the aircraft was made in 1996. Hardly one of "today's planes," but thanks for trying. This sort of thing can happen just as easily on planes made using traditional techniques as on planes using modern techniques.
Moving away from attempting to blame modern engineering...
Flight track: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA812/history/20110401/2225Z/KPHX/KNYL
Track log:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA812/history/20110401/2225Z/KPHX/KNYL/tracklog
The plane descended from 36000 ft to 11000 feet in just 3 minutes. Sounds like a "fun" ride...
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
If this would have happened on a 787, we would not be talking about a successful landing. If one fiber of a carbonfiber structure breaks, the rest will follow quickly.
Is this sort of thing likely with a carbon fiber plane?
9News just said a few people passed out from lack of oxygen, not sure if they're reliable, though.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
It applies to ANY carbon fiber structure - even a formula one car monocoque can fail that way, though much later as other structures of the same mass.
The only way to prevent it is to not let it happen. The Airbus crash in Brooklyn was one such example how quickly a failure can happen in such structure.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587"]American Airlines Flight 587 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
OK, it was in Queens. almost right.
Last edited:
If structural damage could be suspected it would go along those lines:
Engines to idle
Speedbrakes deployed
Wait for V_LO
Extend gear
Flaps 5
Dive! Dive! Dive!
Landing gear deployment is optional and depends on procedures for the specific 737 airframe, some requires it others don't... But diving down 25 kft in 3 minutes sounds to me like they didn't use the 'nice' profile as far as aerodynamic stress goes and simply plowed down at V_NO or V_NE !
After checking on FlightAware, they actually sped up on their way down and slowed only once they were at level flight at 11 000' ...
Last edited:
The hole looks creepy. The incident somehow reminds me of Aloha Airlines Flight 243.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243"]Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------
Indeed. It's beyond the limit of what the variometer displays (6000 feet per minute).
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243"]Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------
Indeed. It's beyond the limit of what the variometer displays (6000 feet per minute).
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Pity I don't have my scanner anymore, or I'd have posted the exact page in the QRH. But it does say in the Emergency Descent Procedure (Non-Normal Check Lists, Section 0.1), in a box with an exclamation mark in a triangle next to it to ensure our caution...
I have just under 400 hours as F/O on the -300, accumulated between May to mid November last year. The shortest but sweetest spell I had on any aircraft. It was a real hot-rod with a full-rated, unreduced power take off. Beautiful. Reminded me of the Jet-Fighter clip from the Pink Panther cartoon. The only consolation is that what I fly now still has those fantastic Commercial Fans Mars 56's.
Maybe someone can educate me or expand on the comment about carbon fibre fuselage??? On all the walk arounds I did I recall there were flush rivets all over the place, hardly the way to fasten carbon fibre panels to the structure, I think. I'm listening, anyway, in case I am missing something. Again, my time was all too brief on the type and I never really got to know it that intimately. However, I'll pop into maintenance when I get a chance during the week and ask about this, in any case. You got my retrospective interest now.
Cairan, the 737 uses hydraulics to actuate the control surfaces, not control wires. Perhaps you're confusing it with the 707, which had control "cables"?
Sounds like that was not adhered to here, does it?
I have just under 400 hours as F/O on the -300, accumulated between May to mid November last year. The shortest but sweetest spell I had on any aircraft. It was a real hot-rod with a full-rated, unreduced power take off. Beautiful. Reminded me of the Jet-Fighter clip from the Pink Panther cartoon. The only consolation is that what I fly now still has those fantastic Commercial Fans Mars 56's.
Maybe someone can educate me or expand on the comment about carbon fibre fuselage??? On all the walk arounds I did I recall there were flush rivets all over the place, hardly the way to fasten carbon fibre panels to the structure, I think. I'm listening, anyway, in case I am missing something. Again, my time was all too brief on the type and I never really got to know it that intimately. However, I'll pop into maintenance when I get a chance during the week and ask about this, in any case. You got my retrospective interest now.
Cairan, the 737 uses hydraulics to actuate the control surfaces, not control wires. Perhaps you're confusing it with the 707, which had control "cables"?
But how is the control command translated? The 737 does not use fly-by-wire and recently I have seen in an aviation video where the steering cables of a brand new 747-400 are located in the fuselage.
As for the 787 and carbon fibre, I can't imagine Boeing builds an airplane that consists of a fuselage structure that can easily burst. Don't you think they have already thought about it from the beginning of the idea of using carbon fibre?
Last edited:
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Not on the -300. From the FCOM, Vol 2, Chapter 9, Section 20...
The "manual" bit means through cables here, too, but that is not the primary way of operating the surfaces. We did that manual reversion thingy on the simulator, and it is HEAVY, man!
But this is not the reason I came back to the thread. I wanted to correct the dates, as I just looked up in my logbook. I did the conversion to the -300 in May, but did not start to fly it until late June.
Linguofreak
Well-known member
I think what is being asked is not "when it fails, is it likely to fail in the way described", but rather "is the chance of failure reduced enough to offset the catastrophic effects described for when a failure does occur."
And further from the FCOM:
:thumbup:
But as a F/O shouldn't you know how the control commands are translated without having a look into the FCOM?
Cairan is not wrong. If the control cables would have been affected, it could have ended very badly because no working cables = no control. The flight controls are powered by hydraulics, but are commanded via cables if there is no fly-by-wire. That's why it becomes heavy without hydraulic power. But the cables are located in the lower part of the fuselage anyway so there was not threat. However, the accident of Continental Flight 1404 (737-500) for example was linked to a broken control cable of the nose wheel steering. The pilots lost directional control during take off run.
The 707 uses hydraulic power for rudders btw (auxilary system).
Similar threads
