Talk:Southwest Airlines Flight 1380
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | A fact from Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 July 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Add section about aircraft
editAs of the date typed [at bottom], the wiki article for Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 doesn’t have a section about the aircraft and I do not know to probably start one.
I am aware the aircraft registration N772SW has been at VCV/KVCV (Victorville Southern California Logistics) since June, 2018. Source: https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-700-n772sw-southwest-airlines/3v0lyr
In the wiki for (seemingly) all other aircraft accidents have a section about the aircraft titled “Aircraft”; case in point wiki article for Southwest Airlines Flight 3472.
Time & date comment made: 20:36 UTC-05:00 (8:36 PM EDT) on Sunday, April 25th, 2021.
Wrong Unit in the preliminary findings section
edit"it was about 12 inches (30 cm) spanwise and full width and weighed about 6.825 pounds (3.096 kg)."
The claimed weight of just over 3 tons strikes me as odd for a 30 cm part. 130.83.17.25 (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- In the US, a "." is below 1 unit. .1 is one tenth. 3 tons would be 3,000 kg. ChrisG50042 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Flight 1380 catastrophic failure in 2023
editWho wants to start a second page for the recent incident with this same aircraft? 167.137.1.15 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Uncontained engine failure
editThis flight is an uncontained engine failure. Even the emergency AD issued after the incident says it was "in-flight fan blade failure and uncontained forward release of debris on a CFM56-7B turbofan engine." Sure, the containment ring was intact, but the purpose of that is to prevent debris from exiting at a "high radial speed". In this case, debris did exit at a high radial speed, so the containment ring did not properly contain the failure and debris struck the fuselage and wing, meaning the failure was uncontained. ChrisG50042 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- The strict definitions of "contained" and "uncontained" apply to the blades in the core of the engine. The accident report says "Impact marks on the fan case and inlet, along with the recovered blade fragments, indicated that the fan blade tip and mid-span pieces exited the fan case and entered the inlet along a forward helical path." This forward path is within the limits that make this a contained engine failure. The significance of this is that the damage to the aircraft was caused by fan cowl components, not directly from any detached blade. The focus of the remedial work is on redesign of the cowl. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)