Southwest Airlines Engine Failure Results In First Fatality On US Airline In 9 Years (heavy.com) 332
schwit1 shares a report from Heavy: Tammie Jo Shults is the pilot who bravely flew Southwest Flight 1380 to safety after part of its left engine ripped off, damaging a window and nearly sucking a woman out of the plane. The flight was en route to Dallas Love airport from New York City, and had to make an emergency landing in Philadelphia. Shults, 56, kept her cool during an incredibly intense situation, audio from her conversation with air traffic controllers reveals, while many passengers posted on social media that they were scared these were their last moments. She, with the help of the co-pilot and the rest of the crew, landed the plane safely. The NTSB reported that there was one fatality out of 143 passengers on board. Some passengers said that someone had a heart attack during the flight, but it's not yet known if this was the fatality reported by the NTSB. The woman who died has been identified by KOAT-TV as Jennifer Riordan, 43, of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Really Bad luck (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Funny)
"When it is infinitely improbable that something will ever happen, it will happen almost immediately." - Douglas Adams.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Informative)
9 years for a fatality on a US airline. Uncontained engine failures happen far more often than that.
Here's [i.redd.it] one that happened just 6 months ago.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Often is right. That makes two fan blade detachments on this model of engine in less than two years. And it is also the second such uncontained engine failure to puncture the body of the plane while failing, though the bits didn't make it all the way into the cabin the first time. IMO, that really should not happen, much less twice.
Call me cynical, but the more news stories I see remarking about the engine's safety record, the more concerned I become. Subjectively, it feels like we're seeing a lot more catastrophic loss of cowling lately than we used to. Maybe that's just the 24-hour news cycle skewing my perception, but I think it would be interesting to see if the materials involved have changed significantly over the last decade or two, and if that might be a contributing factor.
Re: (Score:3)
"Almost immediately" is relative. On the Universe timeline, humanity's existence just barely registers as a bleep.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where it is incorrect, it is definitively incorrect. In cases of major discrepancy, it's reality that's got it wrong." - Douglas Adams.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the design, but in this case it hasn't been all that successful. The FAA already issued an airworthiness directive (essentially the aircraft version of a mandatory recall) for these engines because of this type of failure. So either the airline didn't comply with the requirement, it wasn't sufficient to address this known defect, or the FAA gave too much leniency in the timeline (sometimes these are phased in over time to avoid grounding too many planes at once).
So, yes, bad luck to be on the plane with the exploding engine, and sitting in the path of the flying debris, but not THAT extraordinary, because the risk of the engine fragmenting was known.
Re: (Score:2)
But the evidence is pretty convincing that the engine failure was contained in the official meaning of the term.
The damage to the fuselage and broken window was well aft of the rotating parts of the engine. The damage was obviously (from the photos I've seen) a result of aerodynamic forces on some non structural part of the engine cowling blowing it up over the wind and into the aircraft. So the engine coming apart yet contained may be the trigger, but the fatal damage was from the cowling getting blown
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding of "contained" means that any ejected engine pieces go through the tailpipe (under the wing) where they are unlikely to do much damage. I would argue that if parts of the engine ahead of the wing were ejected upwards and/or forwards with so much force that they made it over the leading edge of the wing, it was an uncontained failure even if the part that hit the fuselage was part of the cowling severed by the fan blade, rather than the fan blade itself.
More to the point, if that's not the
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the FAA hasn't kept their website [faa.gov] up-to-date, that airworthiness directive hasn't gone into effect yet.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You got stuff spinning round like really fast. If a bit breaks off it's going to go where the fuck it wants to.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:4, Informative)
Uhm no. That's exactly the opposite of how the engines are designed.
Modern jet engines are specifically designed to contain all the debris in an engine failure - in particular all the blades which are both the most energetic and most durable. They destructively test by pyrotechnicaly detaching a blade at max RPM...go google, it's fun to watch.
Something fucked up here and parts impacted the rather fragile plane...which happens, but it not the design intent. Had the engine not contained MOST of the debris they likely would not have been able to land at all.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm no. That's exactly the opposite of how the engines are designed.
Modern jet engines are specifically designed to contain all the debris in an engine failure - in particular all the blades which are both the most energetic and most durable. They destructively test by pyrotechnicaly detaching a blade at max RPM...go google, it's fun to watch.
Something fucked up here and parts impacted the rather fragile plane...which happens, but it not the design intent. Had the engine not contained MOST of the debris they likely would not have been able to land at all.
That is certainly the design intent, but that is not how things work in the real world. There are plenty of incidents where a blade liberation has exited the casing. The destructive test regimen is likely dictated by someone (probably the US and/or other governments), and you can bet that the engine is designed to pass the test but be no stronger (to save weight). Pyrotechnically detaching a single blade also does not 100% match some actual failure modes. For example, there are several reasons why multiple blades may liberate simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, causing a severe rotor unbalance which can lead to *more* blade failures.
I'm not saying that the design and testing of these engines is inadequate, certainly it is good enough to limit real-world failures to a reasonable number. But it does not cover all cases or result in engine failure containment 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a really weird failure. If you look at some of the photos around the place, you can see that it appears to be only one blade that has departed, and the rest of the fan looks remarkably undamaged. Rather than breaking free and flying into the fan housing (which is designed to contain a failure), it appears to have moved forward clear of the housing, and out through the engine cowling. Presumably from there it exited into the fuselage, or other bits of the cowling/ancillaries took out the window.
But I agree, incredibly unlucky for the passenger involved. It is still quite remarkable how safe air travel is though, all things considered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really the CFM56 engine in question has a history of fan blade failures. It was instrumental in the Kegworth air disaster in 1989 that after a couple more fan blade failures lead to a redesign and over 1800 CFM56's having them replaced.
There was another uncontained fan blade failure on a CFM56 on Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 in August 2016 before yesterday's incident that was another uncontained engine failure and I will lay a large sum of money that it was a fan blade failure of a CFM56 engine.
I would say that five fan blade failures on an engine is very unusual.
This is not counting the numerous fuel flow problems and flame outs due to rain/hail ingestion this engine has suffered.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that five fan blade failures on an engine is very unusual.
As a turbine engineer, I disagree. That is an excellent track record considering that the air ingested by the engine is unfiltered and damage may occur between major inspection intervals that are not picked up by the engine instrumentation or visual inspection.
Land-based engines are generally built more robustly (since weight is not a concern), have extensive air filtration systems, similar inspection periods, less abuse (# of start/stop cycles per day), and yet they fail at a higher rate than this. 5 failures is a very low rate considering the fleet operating hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Except five high profile fan blade failures in a turbofan engine used on a passenger airplane is unusual.
Uncontained Engine Failures Happen. (Score:2, Informative)
> These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body.
This statement is factually wrong.
When an uncontained engine failure happens - and they do happen - fragments of the blade can travel in any direction. It is random. In this case it looks like a piece went through the window. In that case, it is lucky no passengers were killed by a fragment.
If you want to read just how badly a plane can be damaged by an uncontained engine failure, read up on what happened to QF32:
https://en.wiki
Re: (Score:2)
> These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body.
This statement is factually wrong.
When an uncontained engine failure happens - and they do happen - fragments of the blade can travel in any direction. It is random. In this case it looks like a piece went through the window.
It does not appear so to me. The problem with your theory is this. The broken window is well aft of all of the rotating engine parts and couldn't have been broken by an uncontained fan blade. It looks more like a piece of the engine cowling was driven by aerodynamic forces over the wing and it bounced off the aircraft breaking the window and leaving marks in the blue paint under it too.
The engine failure looks like it was contained, but the cowling was damaged, departed the aircraft due to air flow and
Re: (Score:2)
These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.
This, CFM, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney all design do a lot of testing to ensure their engines fail gracefully. I believe that a fan blade separation is one of the most tested scenarios. Debris is meant to be contained within the engine housing.
Re: (Score:2)
These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.
This, CFM, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney all design do a lot of testing to ensure their engines fail gracefully. I believe that a fan blade separation is one of the most tested scenarios. Debris is meant to be contained within the engine housing.
Meant to be. The test is failure of a single blade in a specific portion of the engine. There are other failure modes which may be more severe. Due to weight constraints, you can bet that the casing thickness is designed to be sufficient for this test but not significantly stronger.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Informative)
These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.
Turbine engineer here. While engines are definitely designed so that parts do not liberate through the casing, there are plenty of incidents where that has occurred.
And explosions (as in an undesired rapid combustion of fuel and air) are indeed very unlikely. But explosions are not the most common failure mode. Blade liberation due to defects in the blade, or due to ingested material are the most common reason for a catastrophic failure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.
It's even worse than that. This was not an uncontained engine failure by all appearances. The broken window was well behind the rotating parts of the engine and looks like it was hit by a large piece of something that left marks all around the window on the fuselage. My guess is that some large part covering the engine came up over the wing and struck the window, breaking it.
This was the *definition* of a freak accident. The chances of an engine failure like this are very slim, especially at cruse. The
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
personally for most I things I would trust Chinese made over American made
You should try your luck with a Chinese made elevator then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or escalator.
Re:Really Bad luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Really Bad luck (Score:2, Informative)
It was a CF engine made by GE
Re: (Score:3)
Oh shit.... my fridge is made by GE. Is it going to explode in nine years?
Re: (Score:2)
That’s a feature, not a bug: a fridge that automatically reheats.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing does not make engines. They choose another manufacturer at time of order. It’s probably GE, RR, or P&W.
Yeah, Boeing isn't responsible for the engines it puts in their planes - only Airbus is. Ughn.
Re: Really Bad luck (Score:2)
personally for most I things I would trust Chinese made over American made
Here, folks, we have the rarest of creatures: a Chinese gov't shill who's never used his own nation's products.
You're in for a treat, Bub! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Trump's Fault (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump credited himself for the lack of U.S. aviation fatalities during his administration, so this one is on him.
Just once in a while I'm reminded why I keep reading /. Well done!
Re: (Score:3)
when dickheads like you act like the mature adults you're supposed to be
Wow, really mature comment there. How about taking your own advice.
Re: (Score:3)
From Reuters [reuters.com], the whole tweet:
“Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!”
The "best and safest year on record"; no one reaches as much as Trump. That's a follow up sentence to something he says he did. And he didn't actually do the first either. What he actually did earlier was say that there were too many regulations in Commercial Aviation and things should be pr
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, an African VISA or European Mastercard?
Nightmare at 20,000 feet (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, it has since been proven both mathematically and experimentally that it’s physically impossible for Shatner to act, yet here he is doing it.
"bravely"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tammie Jo Shults is the pilot who bravely flew Southwest Flight 1380 to safety after part of its left engine ripped off
So what would have been the cowardly variant? Crashing the plane?
Adjectives have meaning. I mean, I'm glad that part of its left engine hasn't "tragically" ripped off since nowadays everything unfortunate or awful is "tragic". But what the fuck is "brave" about saving your beans? "In an extraordinary display of skills, presence of mind and composure": yeah.
There are a fuckload of reasons to admire her feat. Braveness isn't one.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. There's far too much idiotic hyperbole in reporting these days - she was doing her job and if she didn't do it they'd all be dead including her. Its like everyone is "brave" for fighting [insert potentially terminal disease here]. If I had one I'd do my best to fight it, thats not brave , its self preservation!
Re:"bravely"? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's training and professionalism. The list of pilots who panicked in an emergency situation is longer than you'd want it to be. It's OK to praise people for doing their job well, especially when it means life or death for themselves too. Doing the right thing under these circumstances is hard.
Re:"bravely"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about the Brave, but defiantly skillful, professional, composed under pressure. Exactly what I would want in a pilot commanding a plane I am a passenger on.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't create icons without hyperbole, and without icons what's an agenda to do?
Could that lead to agenda discrimination lawsuit?
Re: (Score:3)
Bravery is where you have a choice whether to put yourself in a dangerous situation and you do so knowing your life may be at risk. When you have NO choice in the matter its not bravery , its simply being in a situation you do your best to get out of.
Re:"bravely"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Such language is typically used in these situations, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining when it's a male pilot involved. Pretty much every story on US flight 1549 called Sully Sullenberger "brave" and "heroic" for landing safely on the Hudson without engines. "Brave" is defined as "ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage". I'd say it fits.
Of course you could complain about it for a different reason here; the tone could be taken as being rather condescending, as in "she's female, yet she managed not to panic like a girl, how brave!" I don't think that's how it was meant, but it could be taken that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is the captain would have landed the plane the same way regardless if it was filled with passengers or only himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you could complain about it for a different reason here; the tone could be taken as being rather condescending, as in "she's female, yet she managed not to panic like a girl, how brave!" I don't think that's how it was meant, but it could be taken that way.
I did take it that way. There was a very similar incident in August 2016 (flight 3472)... same plane type, same failure, ruptured fuselage with depressurization, emergency landing. No fatality, but that was just luck. I don't recall seeing the pilot profiled in the news, nor any praise for his or her bravery or skill except from some passenger quotes. The coverage, in my opinion, is very much "oooo, a girl!". Because apparently a well-trained female doing her fucking job competently is still "news". Even th
Re: (Score:3)
So what would have been the cowardly variant? Crashing the plane?
Possibly. The cowardly variant might have involved giving up in the face of adversity, or panicking, and either of those things could have resulted in a crash. But not necessarily. She could have cowardly landed the plane safely, crouching down in her chair, covering her face and peeking at the gauges through the cracks in her fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure what think bravely means. (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, "bravely" means exactly what we get from hearing the pilot in her interaction with air traffic control. According to the dictionary brave is someone: ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage. So, she definitely seemed ready and showed courage (presence of mind and composure as you yourself say) in the face of danger.
Brave does not mean removing the headphone jack from a phone ("dick move" is more appropriate), brave does not mean jumping in the flames for fun ("reckless" is more appropri
Hey BeauHD (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent speculation. Now find the name of the pilot who successfully landed the almost identical Southwest flight 3472 after engine failure and fuselage rupture. Essentially the same incident, with the exception of pure luck that no one was hit by the shrapnel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bravely" is an adverb.
Re: (Score:2)
Tammie Jo Shults is the pilot who bravely flew Southwest Flight 1380 to safety after part of its left engine ripped off
So what would have been the cowardly variant? Crashing the plane?
Adjectives have meaning. I mean, I'm glad that part of its left engine hasn't "tragically" ripped off since nowadays everything unfortunate or awful is "tragic". But what the fuck is "brave" about saving your beans? "In an extraordinary display of skills, presence of mind and composure": yeah.
There are a fuckload of reasons to admire her feat. Braveness isn't one.
You must be fun at parties.
The pilot is brave because they kept extremely cool and professional under pressure. The definition of bravery is:
1. endure or face (unpleasant conditions or behaviour) without showing fear.
. I'd say that brave is definitely an apt description of the pilot and crew. I highly doubt that Terry Toughperson behind a keyboard on /. would have been able to maintain their composure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "bravely"? (Score:2)
They also have to deal with the ever shrinking vocabulary of the average person in the United States due to decades of neglect, and outright contempt from some on the right, of the public education system.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job getting political! It's important to work that in every chance you get regardless of relevancy so that when you actually have an on-topic point we are already desensitized to your posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brave [merriam-webster.com]:
Meanwhile, "cowardly" doing something would be doing it while showing disgraceful fear. I suppose that would be apparent in her voice and word choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here for technical news - left with a grammar lesson. :-P
I don't understand the damage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at the photo: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/da... [cnn.com] It looks like a single blade is missing. If the blade breaks and flies to the cabin, like a dagger, ripping things on the way, I can understand. But how did the whole front cowling get ripped in all directions? or did the wind rip pieces after the structure was damaged?
Think about it this way... That one blade broke loose and suddenly the whole engine is imbalanced and still turning at tens of thousands RPM's. I can see the front fan getting pretty wobbly as everything slows down, shredding the intake cowling.
Also, look at where the broken window is. It is well behind the rotating parts of the engine... I don't think it was broken by a fan blade back there, more likely it was bumped by parts of the cowling driven by aerodynamic forces as they departed the aircraft. T
Onboard safety presentations (Score:2)
Okay to make a bit of light on this tragic situation has anyone else seen the footage coming out of various organisations from the disaster. The selifies are especially terrifying. Example: https://heavy.com/news/2018/04... [heavy.com]
Doesn't anyone know how to use a god damn oxygen mask? I mean it has been a staple part of flight safety demonstrations since the 80s, but really look at the selfies, NO ONE seems to know how the oxygen masks work. Like people have them attached to their chins and stuff, I'm genuinely sur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone know how to use a god damn oxygen mask? I mean it has been a staple part of flight safety demonstrations since the 80s, but really look at the selfies, NO ONE seems to know how the oxygen masks work. Like people have them attached to their chins and stuff, I'm genuinely surprised no one is wearing one like a hat.
I like the guy with the man-bun that couldn't even be bothered to take out his ear buds and doesn't even have the strap around his head. And of course, as you mention, not a single person has the mask covering mouth and nose like you are supposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
The shoulder strap interferes with the blood flow of my penis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because most are too fat. I mean car dealers actually have seatbelt extenders they can install for the true fatties.
Re:Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have been on a flight with *REAL* turbulence; the type where if you are not seated and wearing a belt you are going to be smashed like a rag doll off the ceiling and couple of seconds later the floor of the plane you wear your seat belt on a plane for every second it is possible to do so.
Perhaps living in europe where wearing seat belts are compulsory by law in a car we are more used to wearing restraining belts for long periods of time.
Regardless not wearing a seat belt while seated on a plane is a pointless risk to take in my view.
Re: (Score:3)
Every US flight I've been on in the last 10 years strongly encourages passengers to keep their seat belts buckled whenever they are seated, specifically because of the risk of turbulence. I haven't done a scientific study, but I think most passengers do stay buckled up. The most frequent exceptions would be pre-school-aged children, and sometimes their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a secondary problem in America though: short uncomfortable seat belts and large sized passengers.
The US is #1 for number of obese persons, but 19th [renewbariatrics.com] as a % of population, behind several developed countries in the middle east.
Seat belt extenders are common, I have seen some passengers need two of them. The flight attendants automatically and discretely hand them out, if you watch closely.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like a seatbelt in a car would do more for you in the event of a crash than a seatbelt on a plane.
Yeah, turbulence is an issue. I'm not familiar with this topic. Can that be detected before the plane runs into it or not usually?
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, no. A pilot can receive a report from another plane ahead of theirs on a route that turbulence were experienced, but otherwise clear air turbulence are essentially undetectable.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the pilot detects turbulence, switches on the seatbelt sign and proceeds to fly around it. So the passengers feel nothing and may get a false sense that it is meaningless to have their seatbelts on even when the sign is lit up.
Occasionally the turbulence won't show on the radar and it takes the pilot by surprise. When you've experienced that, you realize that the really serious turbulence comes when the seatbelt sign is off, so you keep it on all the time. The seatbelt sign only comes on during take
Re: (Score:3)
As a pilot: my CFI told me it wasn't really turbulence until your head hit the ceiling with your seatbelt still on.
Then that kept happening to me! (I am a lot taller than him...)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps living in europe where wearing seat belts are compulsory by law in a car we are more used to wearing restraining belts for long periods of time.
Wearing seat belts in a car is compulsory in every state in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps living in europe where wearing seat belts are compulsory by law in a car we are more used to wearing restraining belts for long periods of time.
Wearing seat belts in a car is compulsory in every state in the US.
Oops; except one, apparently.
Obviously that totally invalidates my point, lol
Re: (Score:2)
I don't fly com
Re: (Score:2)
When you have been on a flight with *REAL* turbulence; the type where if you are not seated and wearing a belt you are going to be smashed like a rag doll off the ceiling and couple of seconds later the floor of the plane you wear your seat belt on a plane for every second it is possible to do so.
I've flown a lot and always keep my seatbelt on for just that reason. You never know when you may hit turbulence, especially clear air turbulence, which can seriously injure you if you are not belted in.
Perhaps living in europe where wearing seat belts are compulsory by law in a car we are more used to wearing restraining belts for long periods of time.
Most US stare have some sort of compulsory seat belt laws but enforcement varies and you are not likely to get stopped for not wearing a seatbelt unless you did something to piss the cop off and he needs an excuse to stop you. As for Europe, I would guess compliance varies by country. When I lived in Switzer
Re: Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're using an extreme example.
That's how we pass crazy and extreme laws. "If it save just one kids life..."
Re: (Score:2)
58 injuries per year on average. Small chance, but probably worth keeping your lap belt on loosely so you don't whack your head against the ceiling. I was on one flight where it felt like I was on a roller coaster - but fortunately a previous flight had warned our pilot and they went around checking to make sure we were buckled up and the pilot reduced speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who've encountered clear-air turbulence do.
Re: (Score:2)
I do, or did when I used to fly. Don't do that any more due to TSA nonsense, but I always thought I'd have my brains scraped off the ceiling due to turbulence someday if I didn't.
Re:Why don't Americans like wearing seatbelts? (Score:5, Funny)
It interferes with their freedom.
yes, it makes it harder for them to draw their gun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course he knows. Q is omnipotent. I'm just puzzled why he's here in 2018 instead of messing with Starfleet officers in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well of course he knows. Q is omnipotent. I'm just puzzled why he's here in 2018 instead of messing with Starfleet officers in the future.
It's because Nero changed future history, and Picard is now (or rather will be) the sexy counsellor on the USS GaySulu.
Tammie Jo Shults (Score:5, Insightful)
Ex-Navy F-18 pilot.
Nothing teachers you about staying calm like landing on a pitching deck at night...in the rain and high winds.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of the word "bravely" stuck me also as peculiar; after all, what choice did she have? But on reflection, it's accurate, if perhaps superfluous. If she had panicked, things could have turned out much worse.
What bothered me about your post is your denigration of her motives; your attack is mean and unjustified.
Many people in emergencies, particularly if they are trained, do what is proper for the situation without first analyzing their motives. First, do what's right.