Southwest Airlines 737 damage in flight

It always amazes me that Boeing-built aircraft can have this kind of major airframe damage happen and still land safely.

Is it possible this damage might be due to too many pressurization cycles over the years?

 

Some of Southwest's 737-300 are getting a bit rough. This one here is still listed as active with them

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6240832

 

An awful lot of external doublers on that one. Bet it's a bit slower than the unmodified planes in the fleet.

 

Reminds me of some of the B-17's during the war.

 

...and people push & shove to get aboard this one.....? Aaaack.....

I'll be takin' a much closer look at my plane next time I'm boarding.....before I decide whether to stay or run...!

 

Relax! None of these burps is going to take an airplane down! Media hype and lack of knowledge is working to sound a false alarm here. If vertical fins were falling off or wings were folding up maybe there would be a problem. This latest spite of incidents is a reflection of the age of some of the airplanes and the good design of the manufacturer.

 

Remember, a vertical fin did fall off one Airbus.....

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/968561--another-southwest-airlines-flight-diverted-more-cracks-found?bn=1

I guess this is I've been told to avoid SW like the plague.

 

Why?

They have a fantastic safety record...

 

The best of any US major airline, I believe. Maybe one of the best in the world.

They've never killed a passenger in an accident.

 

Media hype and sensationalizing a fairly minor incident is alive and well. It should be noted that the failure was localized and all passengers deplaned unhurt. I would fly SWA anytime anywhere.

 

+1.

I've never had any problems. Every other airline I've flown had some delay, problems, or just horrible customer service.

 

Sorry folks, it appears I had a brain fart and mistook SWA for NWA.

 

Northworst now belongs to Delta, which is why Delta has 744s. I have no desire to fly any of these airlines.

 

I agree...

While the media is going crazy about this failure, we all understand the outcome of the flight was never in doubt.

Just on the evening news, they had an offhand mention of an Airbus A320 that had an electrical fire in the cockpit today. The pilot declared an emergency and returned to New Orleans, but they said he lost all his instruments and landed with minimal systems. Very lucky they were only in the air a few minutes and could get back on the ground quickly.

I bet those pilots were terrified. Can you even an imagine an A320 with all electrical systems going down? I bet that was a lot closer to being a disaster than we can even imagine.

 

Looks like they lost steering and anti skid upon landing and went off the runway.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/05/355148/ntsb-investigates-united-emergency-landing-in-new-orleans.html

 

Bob, can you summarize what cycle numbers could be on these airframes without concerns regarding failure. I believe the numbers on this one were reported to be around 39000, and the Aloha 737 were around 89000. Curious as to your thoughts on this in general....

 

I am not an expert on airline operations and usage so I can't offer any viable comments on an issue that has so many variables. I just know that these airplanes have a high number of cycles due to the type of life style that they lead. I have tried to contact my old cohorts at work but no words come forth yet. I do know that the cycles are high on these airplanes and that they are subjected to a complex array of forces in the 46 section (aft fuselage), torsion, bending, shear, and some vibrations that add to the fatigue of the structure.I also know that the tear-stopper straps contained the failures within two frames like they were supposed to. It appears that more in-depth inspections must be made in these areas.

 

I belive the 737-200 was designed to go 75000 cycles, there have been dc-9's and other aircraft that have gone well into the 95000 range. However; they can go indefinetly with proper maintenance which obviously gets more expensive as time goes on.

 

I heard from an SWA guy on another forum that they were supposed to be good for 150,000 cycles, but have been finding issues at 75,000 cycles or less.

 

Aloha airlines flt 243..turned into a convertible also at 89000 some landings...I was on this same flight last week from PHX to Sacramento...one never knows

 

Impressive, especially in that environment. Salt air, salt air, salt air... and VERY short flights, island to island.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/120525934.html




Sources: Wrongly-sized rivet holes caused hole in Southwest's 737.


"....................................Investigators found widespread cracking in the metal, which was initially though to be metal fatigue that resulted from the plane's 39,000 takeoffs and landings.

But ABC News has learned that in fact, the part of the problem may have actually been a defect when the Boeing plane was manufactured in 1996.

Investigators are focused on rivets -- the thousands of metal pins that hold the pieces of an airplane together. The concern is that in the area that failed, those pieces were not held together as they should have been.

At this seam in the fuselage - where one piece of metal overlapped another, sources told ABC News some of the rivet holes were not sized correctly, that two pieces were not fastened together tight enough at the seam. Over time, it's believed, that stressed the area and resulted in the cracking. ...................."