[captain_perl]

After V1, the accelerate-stop distance, the pilot is committed to continue flying.

The cargo area of most airliners is not pressurized, so the gash is not an immediate problem.

In a case like this, the pilots would want to climb to several thousand feet and evaluate the situation before landing.

Looks like the pilot did a great job once it was realized the airplane was damaged of remaining calm and flying the airplane.

[voodooranger]

the cargo hold of a 737 is indeed pressurized https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8252/are-cargo-...

[sandworm101]

Cargo is definitely pressurized. Not heated/aced, but pressurezed the same as the rest of the cabin. Everying from the skin inwards is under 5000ish feet of pressure.

[Johnny555]

It's heated above freezing too as far as I know, I've never had anything in my luggage freeze.

[sandworm101]

Heated in that the air becomes warmer as it is compressed. But not the additionally-heated air provided the main cabin. Even so, at low air density even -30 would take a while to cool the large mass of bags.

[selectodude]

The front cargo hold is heated with engine bleed air.

[lavrov]

Not a pilot, and not trying to be an armchair pilot, but why would he have ascended all the way to 36000 feet? Isn't there a real risk of depressurization with hull damage?

[sandworm101]

No. If there was a leak then it wouldnt pressurize properly on the way up. If it was holding pressure, it would probably keep doing so.

[spectre256]

It totally depends. A weakened structure can hold pressurization for a while, and then suddenly (and possibly catastrophically) fail.

A famous example of this is American Airlines flight 96 (1972): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96

[jedmeyers]

Also Japan Airlines Flight 123

[inferiorhuman]

One minor UX gotcha: the alarm for a pressurization problem on a 737 is not all that intuitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

[Johnny555]

I'd rather not trust my life to "probably". If there was some damage to the hull or a cargo door that could lead to failure, it's under more stress and is more of a hazard as the altitude increases.

[sandworm101]

Less stress imho. At altitude the forces on wings/structure are far less than during takeoff.

[Johnny555]

The takeoff has already happened, and a landing (of some sort) will have to happen (which also means flying near ground level).

The thing that doesn't need to happen is flying at full flight altitude when the pressure differential between the inside and outside is greatest.

[TylerE]

Incorrect. In level flight the wings have - by definition - 1g of upward load. Regardless of speed or altitude.

[FabHK]

That’s what sand worm was saying - level flight puts less stress on the wings than takeoff (where you accelerate vertically, thus have more than 1g).

Still, you don’t want to take a structurally damaged plane high up.

[nutcracker46]

Consider cabin pressure differential versus the outside ambient air.

[sandworm101]

1g in up/down force. But thicker air means more forwards/back forces. Higher engine power = more force, regardless of G.

[FabHK]

To take a structurally damaged plane to altitude with that argument (if it holds pressure, it probably won’t explode) is reckless folly.

[TheOtherHobbes]

"probably"

[jimktrains2]

> After V1, the accelerate-stop distance, the pilot is committed to continue flying.

I'm not a pilot, but I'm 100% sure V1 means you can't safely abort the takeoff, _not_ that you're committed to the remainder of the flight.

Also, the ILS is at the end of the runway, they were surely airborne by this point (i.e. past V2), so I'm not sure why you even brought up V1 in this discussion.

In fact, I can't imagine being so low at the end of the runway. At somewhere like Midway (MDW), you'd almost certainly hit a house, at the very very least the perimeter fence.

> In a case like this, the pilots would want to climb to several thousand feet and evaluate the situation before landing.

I'm fairly certain that in an emergency situation you don't "evaluate the situation". Short of actually being unable to fly, you have to take off after V1. If there is any issue whatsoever, you alert the tower and begin to come around to do an emergency landing using "normal" emergency procedures.

[sokoloff]

V1 is the takeoff decision speed, not the accelerate-stop distance.

The accelerate stop distance is the distance it takes to accelerate to V1, reject the takeoff, and stop the aircraft. V1 is in KIAS (knots of indicated airspeed). ASD is in feet/meters.

You are correct that passing V1, the aircraft is committed to fly unless an emergency relating to controllability surfaces.

[14]

@ codeisawesome If he only had a small drink he might have though a couple hours flight time is all his body needed to metabolise the alcohol to where it wouldn't be detected. Again I hate to speculate here and hope that there is a more rational explanation as to why things went the way they did. For example like captain_perl said at a certain speed the pilot is commited to take off. Ok, but why continue flying and not get enough height to turn around and land immediately? Was he following some protocol that states continue climbing then assess damage? Did air traffic tell him to proceed as planned? To the casual observer here, things don't add up. I am hoping there is some explanation but at this point something weird seems to have happened or we are missing a part of the picture. Very interesting.

[comex]

You replied to the wrong comment.