SWA flight continues for 75 minutes after rapid depresurization!!

[Prog 2/2]

Probably the 80 - 100 K tailwind from LAS provided plenty extra of fuel.....

Only if those winds were not used as part of the original dispatch planning, or were stronger than forecast.


"Different corporate culture" is absolutely a player here. You're missing the subtleties of this thread to say otherwise.

 

[TexaSWA]

Only if those winds were not used as part of the dispatch planning, or were stronger than forecast.

It doesnt sound like your experience level jives with your profile. When a situation arises to where a flight cannot be completed as per the release (original plan) ie, unexpected weather, headwinds, of different cruise altitude, you simply confer with dispatch and come up with a new plan. If you have enough fuel, and all else is well, you continue. If you dont, you dont. Simple as that.

There are many reasons why they would have had enough fuel to fly the last hour down low: Tankering (cheaper fuel at departure than destination) anticipated traffic delays, forcast wx etc.

An extra couple thousand pounds would have been enough. Its not as if your fuel burn doubles by flying low.

 

[TexaSWA]

"Different corporate culture" is absolutely a player here. You're missing the subtleties of this thread to say otherwise.

Our corporate culture is not one that lets us land with less than required fuel. The "subtleties" of this thread is just a bunch of jackbones second guessing each other. It has nothing to do with with what actually happened. Which is really nothing.

 

[canyonblue]

"Different corporate culture" is absolutely a player here.

Possibly. One culture that allows pilots to make the decisions, and the rest who cannot.

 

[SWA/FO]

Exactly CanyonBlue!!!

 

[737tanker]

Now how about the fuel?

How far into the resv + alt, or just resv, did they burn? All that tooling around at 140 wasn't accounted for in the original dispatch fuel, and MHT sure isn't an ETP destination, right? I don't think you guys carry that much extra around to begin with (I don't think anybody does anymore), so what did they land with?

But did they consider that MHT (IIRC) is a single suitable runway airport, that someone else's blown tire might have shut down the only game in town, and that BOS and the rest of the airports around aren't as easy to get into as DAL?

Or did the decision to continue on commit them to land at MHT, without enough to go elsewhere?

I'll hold judgment till the facts are out there, but if I were one of the guys in the head shed I'd sure have some questions about this one.

First MHT has 2 runways (17/35 & 6/24) so unless an aircraft blows a tire right at the runway intersection it will remain open. If MHT does close you don't have to go to BOS, you can go to PSM, ALB, BDL, PVD, & Westover AFRB. Secondly when we take off at SWA we plan to land with 5000 lbs plus alternate, normal 45 min reserve is approximately 4000 lbs. Also MHT is one of the airports that it seems we are always tankering to, even from the West Coast. That is why I believe fuel was not even an issue.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

You just never know what Mr. Fed is thinking. If he thought you should have landed at the nearest most suitable airport, he will go after the crew.

Maybe, but...if the crew followed the very QRH that Mr. Fed's office approved...and that very QRH states...."Land as Appropriate" not "Land at the most suitable airport", then Mr Fed won't have a leg to stand on...especially when the Feds assigned to said airline are backing up the crew.

Tejas

 

[NAA Pilot]

Probably the 80 - 100 K tailwind from LAS provided plenty extra of fuel.....

Doesn't you dispatch consider this prior to the flight?

 

[NAA Pilot]

What if ..... what if ...... what if.??? what if.... what if??? what if.... what if... what if.... what if???? what if.... what if ... what if the crew just lands at an airport that is familiar to them while having plenty of fuel remaining with a cabin that is controllable at a lower altitude.

ALB is very familiar

 

[NEDude]

The problem was the outflow valve. At FL410 it went to full open. At 14,000 they were able to get it back under control and got the cabin pressure back under control at the normal cabin altitude of 8,000. Even if they hadn't gotten the outflow valve back under control it is safe and legal to fly unpressurized at 10,000.

So the pressurization was restored to an acceptable limit

You just never know what Mr. Fed is thinking. If he thought you should have landed at the nearest most suitable airport, he will go after the crew

if the crew followed the very QRH that Mr. Fed's office approved...and that very QRH states...."Land as Appropriate" not "Land at the most suitable airport", then Mr Fed won't have a leg to stand on

And since Mr. Feds FAA approved QRH for the situation states "If pressurization is restored, continue manual operation", it would be darned near impossible to violate the crew.

From everything I am reading about this, the crew followed the QRH. And based upon the situation, the QRH instructions, and the fuel situation, the crew decided it was safe to continue on to the destination. Hard to find any fault in their decision if you look at the facts. You can play the what-if game for any flight, even when nothing goes wrong. But you have to use your judgement and experience to determine where to draw the line. Again, looking at the facts as they have been reported, and refering to the QRH, this was a sound decsion.