Women dies from Southwest Airlines engine explosion

I wonder if she died from lacerations from the window glass? I just can't picture someone half going out a window and being pulled back in dieing.
The oxygen is thin and I know above 25k feet your going to be in trouble, but it's not insta death. Maybe 500mph into wind is.
Such a strange way to go and I have a strange morbid curiosity to know how.
That makes me sad for the poor lady that I've forgotten her and thought about the science.
 
Said on the news she died of a heart attack (though I think that was from one of the other passengers) as they were doing CPR on her.

That would make sense though as she would have been asphyxiated while out of the window
 
itchy said:
It does not add up the is something wrong with this story.

Most plane windows are around 100 sq inches, the is no way in the world a hole in the plane window would suck a 60 to 90 kg person out.

The blade has hit her no two ways about it.

RIP either way.
Click to expand...
spoken w/ the absolute conviction of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
 
This happened to a British Midlands pilot (I think, some small airline) in the early 90's I think, but the front window of the plane got blown out. He survived though (for almlst an hour IIRC!!) so it could be the small window that caused her fatal injuries.
 
I believe there is a little more to the story then has been released. If you remember there was an incident years ago when a windshield in the flightdeck detached and the captain was sucked out. Luckily a cabin crew member was in the flight deck and managed to catch him, however couldn’t pull him in. The first officer then landed the aircraft after about 20mins. The captain survived and returned to flying.

So just being sucked out the aircraft isn’t fatal, it just depends on what else has happened.
 
Freakbro said:
Said on the news she died of a heart attack (though I think that was from one of the other passengers) as they were doing CPR on her.

That would make sense though as she would have been asphyxiated while out of the window
Click to expand...

From what I read it took the other passengers a few minutes to pull her back in with is plenty enough time to die of asphyxiation.
 
touch said:
Have you ever been on a plane before? :confused:
Click to expand...

100 square inches is a reasonable approximation from itchy, here are some specs I found by Googling:

The dimensions for (most of) the 707, 727, and 737 airplanes are 10"x14". This isn't specific to your question, but the original spec. for the 707 and 720 windows was 9"x12.5" (this is per a TWA station diagram from a maintenance manual I have that lists their 707 windows as, and I quote: "9x12.5 (typ.)"). IIRC only American ordered their 707s and 720s with the now-standard larger panes, but the 707 is a different beast altogether; regardless, once the 727 came along, the 10"x14" standard was pretty well set in stone...

Back to your question, though: Even the newest 737s are still 10"x14", though they look different most certainly from the inside and to a lesser extent from the outside, as the "Sky" interior uses cabin wall panels that cover portions of the windows to give the illusion of being closer to what's on the 787, which can be more or less visible, depending on your viewing angle.

Also of note if you're drawing your own windows: The corner radii for all cabin windows--including the earlier smaller early 707/720 versions--are 3".

Spacing is nominally 20" on center, which matches Boeing's standard fuselage frame spacing: But watch out, as on the 737 the frame interval aft of the overwing exits varies, albeit quite slightly. It's not really noticeable until you see it the first time...And then, if you're like me, you'll never be able to *stop* seeing the difference
icon_smile.gif
There are other spacing peculiarities based on variant (which won't matter to you since you're not building a long-body airplane), as some are slightly moved and/or missing altogether due to placement of internal components (mostly ventilation duct risers, bulkheads, lavatories, etc.; a duct riser is the reason for the missing window that first showed up on the 737-300).
 
Chris Wilson said:
100 square inches is a reasonable approximation from itchy, here are some specs I found by Googling:
Click to expand...

Yep, he's right. I got the conversion from inches to normal units wrong.
I thought i'd edited my post but apparently not, i've removed it now.
 
moogle said:
This happened to a British Midlands pilot (I think, some small airline) in the early 90's I think, but the front window of the plane got blown out. He survived though (for almlst an hour IIRC!!) so it could be the small window that caused her fatal injuries.
Click to expand...

That the one where air hostess and co-pilot basically held onto him as they then landed the plane? At one point they contemplated letting him go, but when they landed and ambulance crews were on the scene he was still alive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
 
balky12 said:
That the one where air hostess and co-pilot basically held onto him as they then landed the plane? At one point they contemplated letting him go, but when they landed and ambulance crews were on the scene he was still alive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
Click to expand...

I am a race car engineer and can say categorically any supposed professional that thought 8-32 thread bolts felt OK in 10-32 threaded holes is unfit for purpose. I have never read this report before and have to say I am gobsmacked to read an aircraft engineer could fit these bolts without realising they were the wrong size. I'm surprised they even torqued up OK without stripping. I have seen some alarming things on funfair rides but would have expected something so basic as this to be incapable of being done by a professional aviation mechanic. Frightening!

"Accident investigators found that a replacement windscreen had been installed 27 hours before the flight, and that the procedure had been approved by the shift maintenance manager. However, 84 of the 90 windscreen retention bolts were 0.026 inches (0.66 mm) too small in diameter (8-32 vs. 10-32), while the remaining six were 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) too short (0.7 inch vs. 0.8 inch). The investigation revealed that the previous windscreen had been fitted with incorrect bolts, which had been replaced on a "like for like" basis by the shift maintenance manager without reference to the maintenance documentation, in order to save time as the plane was due to take off soon and there was a tight schedule."
 
balky12 said:
That the one where air hostess and co-pilot basically held onto him as they then landed the plane? At one point they contemplated letting him go, but when they landed and ambulance crews were on the scene he was still alive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
Click to expand...

That's the one! Yep, they only held onto him because the co-pilot thought he might be ingested into the engines and didn't want to risk it. I think he went unconscious but he survived. So yes whilst the 600+ Mph winds must be extremely difficult to survive in, it has been done. Which makes me think the poor woman must have had impact injuries to cause her death.
 
moogle said:
That's the one! Yep, they only held onto him because the co-pilot thought he might be ingested into the engines and didn't want to risk it. I think he went unconscious but he survived. So yes whilst the 600+ Mph winds must be extremely difficult to survive in, it has been done. Which makes me think the poor woman must have had impact injuries to cause her death.
Click to expand...

She probably hit her head severely on the way out and or repeatedly made contact with the fuselage once outside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom