re: Pilot of Southwest flight with blown engine was one of Navy's first female fighter pilots

quote:

---

At 10k ft that's fine, but at 30k ft, it could cause an explosion. Good lord.

---

Again, not what I'm talking about. The hole formed, decompression occurred, pressure was equalized, and that's the end of that. And that entire series probably took less than 10 seconds to occur. Could something worse have happened? Yup. But it didn't, so that's not what we're talking about. Once the pressure equalized that plane flew no differently with a hole in its side than it did 10 minutes prior.

ETA: Flew no differently because of the pressure. Obviously it flew a bit differently because of the no engine on one side thing.

This place just never ceases to amaze me

The pilots own words describe the aircraft as Missing part of the aircraft.

You can be sure that the flaps were damaged as well as the hydraulics that control them. Not to mention a hole in the fuselage that sucked out one person and partially sucked out another.

The massive pressure exhaust at height causes the plane to peel itself outwards. She had to do an emergency descent and bleed speed while not allowing the plane to peel apart. Oh, and then she put it down safely.

You are being obtuse in your continued questioning and I don’t think anyone will argue a simple shutdown is appreciably harder than landing with two engines but that is clearly what did not happen. An engine blew up enough to create a hole and shower passengers with shrapnel. If you don’t see how that is different then I will gentlemanly stop pushing the issue and feel sorry for your lack of common sense.

The pilot being a woman has triggered the OT today

quote:

---

This place just never ceases to amaze me

---

We have a whole bunch of people in this thread acting like I'm an idiot and what I'm saying is wrong in the most common sense way. What am I saying that is wrong?

Aside from chuckling and getting in your quip about how I'm retarded (which might not be incorrect), can any of rhodes scholars tell me what I'm wrong about here? What does everyone 'know' about flying an airplane that I don't? This is confusing my small brain.

quote:

---

What am I saying that is wrong?

---

You're right man. As soon as you change the situation to a failed engine at 10k ft with no one on board in a flight simulator, you are so totally right.

quote:

---

The pilots own words describe the aircraft as Missing part of the aircraft. You can be sure that the flaps were damaged as well as the hydraulics that control them.

---

Again, if this is true, it's an entirely different story. This is more than losing an engine, this is losing control function.

quote:

---

Not to mention a hole in the fuselage that sucked out one person and partially sucked out another.

---

This obviously sucks, but I don't see how this affected the performance of the aircraft.

quote:

---

The massive pressure exhaust at height causes the plane to peel itself outwards. She had to do an emergency descent and bleed speed while not allowing the plane to peel apart.

---

I don't believe this is true. Do you have some evidence? The instant the rupture happens, the dP is great enough to potentially cause a catastrophic breakdown of the fuselage. But pressure equalizes incredibly quickly and once it is equalized, there would be absolutely no threat of the remaining body 'peeling' apart.

I appreciate you trying to have a logical conversation about what happened, tho....

quote:

---

I will gentlemanly stop pushing the issue and feel sorry for your lack of common sense.

---

...ah there it is, nevermind.

quote:

---

Once the pilot regained control and got it to 10k feet in under 5 minutes.

So easy. Here's where we are: It was easy because: 1) she's a well-trained pilot with tons of experience 2) we can ignore the stress of the situation: the injured people and the blown up engine. Why? Because you said so. 3) a hole in the fuselage at 30k ft + a possibly damaged wing = an engine cutoff at 10k ft

---

It was easy because:

She's a well-trained pilot with tons of experience.

We can ignore the stress of the situation: the injured people and the blown up engine. Why?

She's a well-trained pilot with tons of experience. A hole in the fuselage at 30k ft + a possibly damaged wing = an engine cutoff at 10k ft

Whatever the damage she followed emergency procedures, why?

She's a well-trained pilot with tons of experience.

quote:

---

This lady is a decorated veteran and does a whale of a job in getting this plane down safely, yet some people really think this story is an attack on white men.

---

What?? I didn't even read the linked story, I don't give a shite about the story. I don't give a shite if she was a woman, man, trans, dog, whatever. They could give this woman the presidential medal of freedom for this and I would applaud her and say great job. She should get credit for performing under pressure and safely landing a damaged plane.

My question was whether landing that plane was, technically speaking, all that difficult. Had nothing to do with the politics of who the damn pilot was.

Props to this lady. She should absolutely get her due praise if she deserves it!