Flight to Seattle diverted after mid-air decompression
»Play Video
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- An Alaska Airlines flight heading to Seattle made an emergency landing in California on Wednesday after losing cabin pressure during an electrical failure, officials said.
A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said Alaska flight 539 was diverted to Mineta San Jose International Airport and landed safely at 7:42 a.m. after declaring an emergency.
San Jose Fire Department Capt. Mary Gutierrez said the crew of the Boeing 737-400 reported the decompression and electrical failure about 40 minutes after taking off from Ontario, California. Alaska officials say the crew was able to manually pressurize the cabin and descend to 10,000 feet.
Medics met the plane on the ground and checked to make sure there were no issues with passengers, Gutierrez said, but no one was hurt.
However, some passengers complained of intense ear pain as the pressure dropped inside the cabin.
"All of a sudden, my ears, it was just horrible," said 89-year-old Audrey Kirkner. "I've never had anything like that in my whole life, and I've flown for years."
Dean Hunter added, "everyone's ears were getting plugged up and trying to regulate their ears. There were babies crying and even some adults crying from the pain in the ears."
Alaska spokesperson Paul McElroy said the problem stemmed from the air/ground sensor, which is designed to tell the plane whether it's on the ground or in the air.
When the sensor malfunctioned at 25,000 feet, the plane thought it was on the ground and turned off the automatic flight controls, McElroy said. But pilots were able to immediately take over manual control and there was no loss of altitude or speed.
The sensor also turned off the cabin pressurization, assuming the plane was on the ground, but a back-up system kicked in immediately and oxygen masks didn't need to be deployed, McElroy said.
ABC News Aviation Consultant Steve Ganyard commended the pilots for the way they handled the situation.
"(Air/ground sensor malfunction) can be something very significant but in this case the pilots did a great job," Ganyard said. "They were trained to handle these sorts of situations and brought the airplane back safely."
It was not clear what caused the electrical problem on the aircraft, which had 136 passengers and five crew members on board.
"We have pulled the aircraft from service and the plane will undergo a very detailed inspection before we ever put it back into service," said Alaska Airlines spokeswoman Bobbie Egan.
The passengers were being rebooked on other flights to Seattle.
A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said Alaska flight 539 was diverted to Mineta San Jose International Airport and landed safely at 7:42 a.m. after declaring an emergency.
San Jose Fire Department Capt. Mary Gutierrez said the crew of the Boeing 737-400 reported the decompression and electrical failure about 40 minutes after taking off from Ontario, California. Alaska officials say the crew was able to manually pressurize the cabin and descend to 10,000 feet.
Medics met the plane on the ground and checked to make sure there were no issues with passengers, Gutierrez said, but no one was hurt.
However, some passengers complained of intense ear pain as the pressure dropped inside the cabin.
"All of a sudden, my ears, it was just horrible," said 89-year-old Audrey Kirkner. "I've never had anything like that in my whole life, and I've flown for years."
Dean Hunter added, "everyone's ears were getting plugged up and trying to regulate their ears. There were babies crying and even some adults crying from the pain in the ears."
Alaska spokesperson Paul McElroy said the problem stemmed from the air/ground sensor, which is designed to tell the plane whether it's on the ground or in the air.
When the sensor malfunctioned at 25,000 feet, the plane thought it was on the ground and turned off the automatic flight controls, McElroy said. But pilots were able to immediately take over manual control and there was no loss of altitude or speed.
The sensor also turned off the cabin pressurization, assuming the plane was on the ground, but a back-up system kicked in immediately and oxygen masks didn't need to be deployed, McElroy said.
ABC News Aviation Consultant Steve Ganyard commended the pilots for the way they handled the situation.
"(Air/ground sensor malfunction) can be something very significant but in this case the pilots did a great job," Ganyard said. "They were trained to handle these sorts of situations and brought the airplane back safely."
It was not clear what caused the electrical problem on the aircraft, which had 136 passengers and five crew members on board.
"We have pulled the aircraft from service and the plane will undergo a very detailed inspection before we ever put it back into service," said Alaska Airlines spokeswoman Bobbie Egan.
The passengers were being rebooked on other flights to Seattle.
Can someone confirm what the tail number is to this airplane?
Glad the flight crew was able to react and keep everyone safe. Great job!
just as Crystal explained I am amazed that a person can make $6820 in four weeks on the computer. did you see this web page
http://LazyCash49.com
notice it's an older 737-400 model.....which are scheduled to be replaced by brand new 737-800 & -900's
kudos to the flight crew for keeping calm & working to keep the plane & passengers safe
 @8thNotch Can someone confirm the tail number, I always like to know what actual planes have issues.
 @8thNotch Don't look to see the 400's vanish anytime soon they still have a lot of years left in them.
Hi all -- we just got more details on the incident from Alaska spokesman and they've been added to the story now.
10,000 feet is a good level. The mountains are a hundred miles east of there.  Sounds like the crew did an outstanding job. Â
 @Granny_MAC 10,000 feet is standard altitude to move to when there is loss of cabin pressure as there is enough oxygen at that altitude that additional pressurization is not needed. (Son of a pilot :) )
 @ScottS Thanks Scott. I have a few hours under my garter belt, ha, ha. I never went up about 5000 feet though on my own. No need. I didn't get my license either. I just could not hear the tower that good and of course they talk like lickity split directions and all. I asked one ground controller to speak slowly and he did. What a gentleman. He gave me the taxi and runway instructions in super, super slow motion. I thought what a wise acre at first but it was kind of funny later on.  :)
 @ScottS I've only flown Piper cubs and cessna 150's 152's , 172's. I can't remember exactly and taxi'ed a few. One mechanic let me taxi a 727 years ago to the run up. That was fun. I also taxi'ed an A-6E Intruder up to the hold short line for an engine test run for just a few minutes since the mechs didn't want to take it all the way to high power spot.  This was early 60's around 64, 65.  The pilot was my very good friend Bob in the right seat. We got away with those things back then. His call sign was BobCat.  It's because he didn't like cats. Tons of fun. Â
Good thing this did not happen on there flights to Hawaii
All you need to know from this article (TL;DR version):
Â
Boeing 737-400. ... Lost cabin pressure. ... Major electrical failure. ... Pilots landed the plane fine. ... No injuries.
Â
This is why I continue to fly Alaska Air.
I'm thinking Alaska Airlines really needs to get their act together, so much bad publicity lately, not good at all, I think maybe its time they had an "Undercover Boss" in, to see just what goes on.
 @Teri Blay What exactly is bad about this story? An airline company can't magically keep planes from experiencing unforeseen electrical failures. The crew acted appropriately and everyone came out fine.
 @Teri Blay How is that bad publicity? The plane landed quite successfully/safely after a catastrophic electrical failure. I'd say that was a crisis diverted / success story.
 @keeper i think Teri Blay is referring to the "Alaska Airlines Wing Note "Not Appropriate" story that came up only days ago: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/165310296.html
Not too many things cause a person to find religion faster than that sudden falling sensation. There is something about that oxygen deprived, reliving of all your memories as you anticipate the sudden screeching halt to the wild ride you are on.
This comment has been deleted
 @alexcrowley I'm quite the opposite on one of your points. It's stories like these that make me feel even safer about flying. I mean, to hear that an airplane suffered a catastrophic electrical failure and was still able to land safely means these behemoths are even more safe than I thought. But I despise the TSA, so I'll agree with you there...
 @keeper a failed switch is not a "catastrophic electrical failure."
When is the media going to STOP using the term "tarmac"!!!! Â I means absolutely nothing in the United States....or anywhere, for that matter. Â "Tarmac" is merely a "type" of paving used over in Great Britain back in WWII........ALL modern airport use asphalt or concrete. Â The areas of an airport are: Â runway, taxiway, ramp/apron.......anyone using the term "tarmac" just shows they have NO idea what they are talking about.
 @Richard Take it easy Dick! Its just a general term that most people can relate to when talking about an airplane that's sitting out on a flight line, gate, stall, etc.
 @dweeler The name is Richard...... "tarmac" is a material, not a "place".
Whatever......................DICK!!
 @Richard Let me guess... you're the same guy who freaks out about the word marriage too?
 @Ethan Allen Not hardly......
 @Richard Tarmac (short for tarmacadam, or tar-penetration macadam) is a type of road surface. which we call asphalt. a cement area is not Tarmac.
 @32jim2 I thought macadam was more commonly referred to as chip seal, not asphalt.
 @32jim2 Exactly!
 @Richard Maybe after they start using, "affect," instead of "impact."
 @Sid Vishess :-)
 @Richard I know 10 to 20 year military veteran pilots, both active and retired, who were trained to refer to the flight lines and adjacent areas as "tarmac". Even after they retired and fly Cessna and other private aircraft, they still refer to it as a tarmac.
Â
Its your opinion but Id love to see you go to a group of combat veteran pilots and see the reaction you get from telling them they have no idea what they are talking about.
 @DarkRenegade :-)
Oops.....should have read " It means......."
 @Richard Did this article say "tarmac"? If it did, it looks like the KOMO staff when back in and changed "tarmac" to "ground" so they didn't look foolish.
 @keeper Can't say it would TOO foolish to use the term that way, being as 2 different online dictionaries both said it's a term for 'runway' and my dead-tree dictionary says the same thing. Words with multiple meanings, what ever is the world coming too...
 @oakie Not trying to speak for the entire flying community.....but only a very small minority of the "flying community" uses that term in the US.....it comes down to the fact that "tarmac" is a material...NOT a place.....do you say you're going to take a drive down the "asphalt" instead of "road"......anyway.......and by the way, if you're referring to my Dad and myself as the 152 flyers.....my Dad is a retired airline pilot with 25,000+ hours and flew everything from Convairs to 747's with Continental. I have 6000 hrs. and flew for ASA for 6 years until my career was cut short by a family tragedy and resulting personal reasons......so, "we've been around'.
 @Richard just because you and your father are both pilots doesnt mean you speak for the whole flying community. and nobody really cares what the guy in a cessna 152 wants to hear over the radio other than, "i'm clear of your path."
 @Richardthe term is still used in other english speaking countries, "overseas" interchangeably with "asphalt." tarmac is just the original brand-name for the first asphalt mixture.
Â
in the USAF, we'd often use "deck or ground" and "asphalt" as separate terms for home station (non-combat); the former indicating landed on runway, usually of concrete construction, the latter being after taxiing off the runway and end-of-runway (arm/disarm/cooldown pit). for example, "first sortie is arriving on deck," refers to landing versus "first sortie is on the tarmac," which refers to being on the taxiway."
Â
civilians and military tend to refer to things differently due to some differing ground procedures, differences between ground crew and aircrew terminology, host nation protocol, or combat versus non-combat runway condition and availability.
 @LocalLady  @richard: :-)
 @richard:Â
Wow. Seems like a LOT of anger/ansgt over s imple word. Don't like it? Ignore it - that's what most sane people would do. Life is too short to blow a gasket over something that in the grand scheme of things is really a miniscule little nothing.
 @theToucan  @keeper Well.....when it "was" used, it was overseas "many" years ago.....means absolutely nothing "today"..... I'm a pilot, my Dad is a pilot.....and NO ONE "in the business" uses that term......it's like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.  We know it's a losing battle to try and get the "correct" terms used among the media/general public.  :-/
 @keeper Wow.....sure enough, they did!  :-)
@Richard I call my driveway a tarmac...
Anyway I hope everyone was ok. Must have been pretty scarey.
Glad everyone is safe and on the ground. I hate flying, and I know driving is so much more dangerous. Why is it always Alaska? I am sure this happens all of the time all around the world..is it just because they are based here? Ok, maybe catastrophic electrical failures don't happen every day, or do they? Forget it, not getting on a plane anytime soon. On the way into Detroit we circled for 45 mins.. they said "Welcome to Detroit"..45 mins later still in the air. I thought "WOW, must be a huge airport.." Must have been those chill pills or I would have thought something totally different.
@Yeah_and I have noticed there have been a large number of stories about Alaska Airlines lately, yet none of the stories about other airlines have made Komo's site- I think someone at Komo has something personal against Alaska.
 @momof2:Â
Â
No, more likely they post them because Alaska is based here. There is a limited number of stories they can put up, so they have to choose what they do & don't put up.
 @LocalLady I don't know if you remember a long time ago I was telling you about one of my "co-workers" who also was one of the head mechanics at Alaska..THAT alone kept me off of that airline. Not the brightest bulb that guy..I don't think he's there anymore. Maybe he was better with planes than people? One can only hope. I know you are right about the media, I just need to keep my media choices bigger. There is a world out there, beyond my little one.
Take Care LocalLady.
@Yeah_and I also hate flying! Was involved in a scary landing as a child. If my car has an electrical failure it stops, oh well. Not like a plane. And I do drive all over the place.
 @SunLover  @Yeah_and LOL! I have actually said "If my car breaks down I'm not going to drop ten thousand feet"..sounds so stupid considering I was almost killed when someone plowed into me head-on..Still, I was on the ground. I was in Vegas and refused to get on the plane. I was going to rent a car and drive home. So my friends got me hammered..I enjoyed the ride home..I think, can't remember.
 @Yeah_and "Always Alaska"? There are far more stories about other airlines in the news than Alaska Airlines. And the inability to land at an airport is dictated by the airport, not by the airline.
 @keeper My point exactly. I think we just hear about it more in this region because they are based here. I know about inability to land dictated by the airport..one close call taught me that, which is why I don't like to fly now. It's my own fear, ignorant as it may be, still scares me.