snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Crash and Burn (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Plane makes emergency landing in Philadelphia (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=96601)

Psihala 17 April 2018 04:44 PM

Plane makes emergency landing in Philadelphia
 
A Southwest Airlines plane made an emergency landing in Philadelphia today.

Flight 1380 was en route from New York City's LaGuardia International Airport to Dallas Love Field when it was diverted to Philadelphia International Airport, where it landed safely, airport officials said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/plane-makes...ry?id=54530003

Psihala 17 April 2018 04:53 PM

Whenever something like this happens, the major news outlets veer between almost nondescript accounts to the over-dramatic. Since my usual source went the latter route, I went with a different one.

That said, it appears this un-contained failure of the left engine sent debris into the passenger cabin, resulting in at least one serious injury and a loss of cabin pressure due to a broken window.

As of this writing, the NTSB's Newsroom Twitter account indicated they were still gathering information.

~Psihala

GenYus234 17 April 2018 04:54 PM

Yikes. Based on the pictures, I'm going to WAG a fan disk failure with debris from the cowling causing the window damage.

ETA: I'm not sure it was engine debris that caused the damage. The blown out window pictured is well back from the engine and the fuselage does not seem to have any major damage in the vecinity of the fan/compressor section of the engine.

On second thought, I'm thinking more towards some sort of mid-air collision. The major damage seen on the engine is the very front, before any rotating components. The entire cowling is gone along with the inspection panel and the inner cowling appears fractured across a large part of the engine.

WildaBeast 17 April 2018 05:01 PM

Some news outlets are saying a passenger was partially sucked out the broken window. :eek:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/nati...lowFB_BAYBrand

ETA: I hope this doesn't come across as victim-blaming, but this is a good reason why you should keep your seat belt fastened even what the seat belt sign is off.

Psihala 17 April 2018 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1976738)

On second thought, I'm thinking more towards some sort of mid-air collision. The major damage seen on the engine is the very front, before any rotating components. The entire cowling is gone along with the inspection panel and the inner cowling appears fractured across a large part of the engine.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the investigation reveals. I rather doubt the NTSB will wait terribly long to send a team to the scene.

~Psihala

Tootsie Plunkette 17 April 2018 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildaBeast (Post 1976739)
Some news outlets are saying a passenger was partially sucked out the broken window. :eek:

The air pressure in the plane pushes you out (or tries to), so you're not sucked, you're pushed.</nitpick>

GenYus234 17 April 2018 07:30 PM

How do you feel about centrifugal force? ETA: Physics geeks go round and round about centrifugal "force".

Psihala 17 April 2018 07:43 PM

Reports are starting to come in indicating a passenger has died. By the time this gets posted, those reports will likely be confirmed. They conflict, though, as to whether it was the passenger in the window seat or someone else on the plane.


~Psihala
(*Edited to clarify based on continually updating information.)

Cervus 17 April 2018 11:30 PM

This story is my literal nightmare and reaffirms my fears of having a window seat.

ganzfeld 18 April 2018 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1976766)
How do you feel about centrifugal force?

Bad Genyus. No biscuit for you!

Also, don't get into a discussion about how airfoils and wings work. Unless you're willing to just nod and not ask any questions at all, you will regret it.

jimmy101_again 18 April 2018 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganzfeld (Post 1976784)
Also, don't get into a discussion about how airfoils and wings work. Unless you're willing to just nod and not ask any questions at all, you will regret it.

Hint: airplanes don't generally generate much lift if the are flying truly horizontal. (Hint #2: beverage carts on commercial jets must have wheel brakes. The need for brakes on the carts has nothing to do with the plane being in motion.)

jimmy101_again 18 April 2018 02:54 AM

Hint #3: Most planes are aerodynamically capable of flying upside down.

ganzfeld 18 April 2018 03:46 AM

Nice try! Not taking the bait.

dfresh 18 April 2018 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again (Post 1976792)
Hint #3: Most planes are aerodynamically capable of flying upside down.

Exactly, which completely disproves that foolish "round world" hypothesis!

Alarm 18 April 2018 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfresh (Post 1976804)
Exactly, which completely disproves that foolish "round world" hypothesis!

It does not!
it just proves that planes are designed to also fly inside the hollow part of the earth...
:fish:

Seaboe Muffinchucker 18 April 2018 02:28 PM

The passenger has died, and preliminary reports indicate metal fatigue in one of the titanium blades of the fan.

IMO, the fact that the plane was a 737 is irrelevant; the problem was with the engine and the maintenance of it.

Seaboe

GenYus234 18 April 2018 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again (Post 1976792)
Hint #3: Most planes are aerodynamically capable of flying upside down.

I get what you are saying about wing design, but I'm not sure this entire statement is accurate, especially with regards to larger aircraft like jumbo jets. First, the aircraft would have to adopt an exaggerated nose up attitude* in order to get an appropriate angle of attack. From some quick Google searches, Boeing aircraft have an angle of incidence like 2 (727) or 3.2 (757). Other searches say they fly with something like 3 of nose up for an overall angle of attack of 5 to 6.2 angle of attack. To get that same AOA inverted would require a nose up attitude* of 9 to 12.6. That would severely increase the drag. Also, there are a number of design elements on the wing such as vortex generators and winglets that are designed to maximize lift and minimize drag in the upright flight positions, they could be useless or even counterproductive in inverted flight.

Secondly, an upside down jumbo would be quite unstable**. The now negative dihedral and inverted wing twist would cause major roll instability and severe danger of spinning the aircraft in a stall. Worse than that would be the fact that in the high angle required for inverted flight, the horizontal stabilizer would probably be at a positive AOA meaning it would also be producing upward lift instead of the downward lift it would normally produce. This would shift the center of lift far beyond the normal range, making pitch severely unstable, possibly so unstable as to be unflyable.

* As seen by an outside observer.
** Not sure if you consider stability part of aerodynamics.

iskinner 18 April 2018 03:01 PM

I would also question the structural elements that generally hold an aircraft in a single piece. I would not be surprised that these elements will not have been designed to function with all the normal stresses suddenly being applied in opposite directions then anticipated during design especially on such large vehicles.

Small stunt planes and some combat fighters, yes they are designed to handle such variable stresses, jumbo jets, probably not so much.

I get your point that the shape of aircraft mean they are theoretically still aerodynamic in an inverted orientation at least until the wings actually fold and fall off or some other critical structural failure.

GenYus234 18 April 2018 03:27 PM

FAR Part 25 covers the standards for aircraft used by an airline. It requires that aircraft be able to withstand negative g forces of at least -1.0. While inverted flight is not exactly the same as having a negative load factor, the same design that allows for maneuvers that would subject the aircraft to negative g forces would probably allow it to survive inverted flight.

jimmy101_again 18 April 2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1976820)
...
* As seen by an outside observer.
** Not sure if you consider stability part of aerodynamics.

Basically yes, the nose up attitude has a huge contribution to lift, perhaps more so than the different upper and lower cord of the wing. A basic wing works OK upside down and some aircraft have wings with equal upper and lower cord so the typical wing cross section shape is not a requirement for lift.

Stable and unstable flight are of course both parts of "aerodynamics". There are a few planes that are unstable but still perfectly flyable (e.g., any plane with a flat wing structure, particularly if the wing is below the center of mass).

Flying upside down does of course have other issues, as others have pointed out, such as if the basic structure can take the inverted load, if the hydraulic system can operate upside down (many can't), if the fuel system can operate upside (many can't) etc.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.