Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southwest Airlines Engine Failure, Passenger Near Sucked Out of the Aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    Of course when a couple lawyers try to teach these money whores a financial lesson, itÂ’s the lawyers that are called out for being greedy.
    (Because the lawyers take such a big cut and nobody else gets much at all. It's called a class-action suit.)

    But it's not just Boeing. The EC-150 crash last month was a clear instance of the FAA failing to heed a VERY clear warning from the NTSB.

    Uncontained engine failure is one of very few things for which on-board technology cannot provide an adequate defense. If the thing throws shrapnel, good luck. That is why ground-based technology must prevent it from ever happening. The FAA clearly isn't doing enough in that respect.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      I think we're becoming Russia.
      Well, we (USA and Russia) did both elect Trump.
      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

      Eric Law

      Comment


      • #78
        Any picture of the missing compressor blade or missing parts?
        Click image for larger version

Name:	04182018_Flight1380_cowling_NTSB.2e16d0ba.fill-735x490.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	219.6 KB
ID:	1027489
        A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

        Comment


        • #79
          What is the definition of uncontained? I don't think this engine threw out shrapnel. I think it damaged itself, and then large pieces got torn off by wind and they got slammed into the window.

          These definitions make a big difference. I will bet that when they test these failures -- by using explosives to dislodge a fan blade on the ground -- they are not doing it in a wind tunnel, so they don't see the effects of high wind velocity multiplying any damage to the cowling or housing.

          I also think that people tend to forget the dual mandate of organizations like the FAA. They have to maintain safety AND a healthy industry. Also, it is CFM the engine manufacturer and the airline that is at financial risk, not Boeing so them being in bed with government is a not a factor. Due to the age and makeup of their fleet Southwest has the most to lose financially from this which is why they were fighting back against the proposed directive on the engines late last year.

          Even though I love slamming lawyers and their ilk, the airline industry safety record is still pretty good. One can't just say, why don't they inspect every week, because inspections cost a lot of money and long term plans went into the projected costs of maintenance. When SW bought those planes and engines, they made a long term financial investment. Sudden changes in the cost of ownership are nothing to sneeze at. In effect, they were sold a bill of goods that didn't live up to the advertising. Additionally, where do you draw the line? Should they inspect every week? The inspection period should be chosen very carefully because it will have a large impact on the airline and costs. Because not everything can be controlled or predicted sometimes it takes an accident to figure out a better system.

          Comment


          • #80
            After 10 great years, we kill one person, and there is no crash to go with it.

            CFM-56 engines provide a bizzilion hours of good service and throw a couple blades.

            The death is tragic and, dang, better inspect some engines and maybe beef up the joints...

            ...but please continue with the lengthy lawyer-government-Russia poop throwing fest about how much everything sucks.

            Off to get some popcorn...
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
              Additionally, where do you draw the line? Should they inspect every week? The inspection period should be chosen very carefully because it will have a large impact on the airline and costs. Because not everything can be controlled or predicted sometimes it takes an accident to figure out a better system.
              In both of the incidents cited, the fan blades failed due to fatigue. You don't have to inspect a part that frequently to detect fatigue before it becomes failure, but obviously you have to inspect it with greater frequency than is currently required. And that isn't just true of the CFM-56, it's true of all turbofan engines.

              The FAA is restrained from doing that by collusion with the industry. It is not their mission to provide a healthy economic outlay for industry. Their mission is to ensure it is as safe an industry as is practically possible. Increasing, even doubling, the inspection requirements is not impractical but it is necessary to ensure safety. Therefore there should be no mission conflict in doing so. The airline industry must remain a pay-to-play industry, where profits will always come after safety. Corruption currently works to reverse those priorities.

              "Uncontained" in my definition is any failure in which the damage is not contained within the engine containment structure, for whatever reason. When the engine containment is breeched, there is no reliable defense or contigency, thus everything must be done to prevent this from happening in the first place.

              I think the current policy is more like 3WE's "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few passengers" version. That's not true. You can prevent blade failures by catching them before they fail.

              Comment


              • #82
                Evan, how much do you understand fatigue? Fatigue is statistical in nature. You have X% of the sample that will fail at less than Y million cycles. Make Y small enough, and X can be 0.001%, 0.0000001%, or 0.000000000000001% or.... you get the idea. There is NO inspection period that is short enough that GUARANTEES that NO BLADE EVER will fail due to fatigue before the next inspection. So where you draw the line? 2 blade failures after in hundreds of million of hours doesn't seem so bad.

                The definition of contained failure is that internal parts of the engine remain inside the engine or exit the engine through the tailpipe..
                I don't think that anybody ever considered a cowl that separates in flight (as the A320 had many incidents) an uncontained engine failure.

                I don't know if this failure was contained or not, but single blades failures (critical blade at max RPM) are required to be contained by the FAA regulations, and the requirement also states that such blade failure shall no originate an engine failure or vibration/forces that would separate the engine.

                It is not stated directly, but evidently the spirit of the requirement is that a single blade failure should not be a critically dangerous event, but rather just the loss of thrust. Whether the failure was contained or not (i.e. whether pieces of the blade or other internal parts flew out radially as shrapnel or not), I am concerned that what seems to have been a single blade failure generated such level of destruction of the engine that killed a passenger and could have cause much more damage to the airplane that could have put in risk the safety of the flight.

                That concerns me more than the blade failure itself. Not that the blade failure doesn't concern me, it does. But not as much as the fact that the blade failure, which should have been a relatively mundane engine failure and which cannot be avoided 100%, become something so dangerous.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Evan, how much do you understand fatigue? Fatigue is statistical in nature. You have X% of the sample that will fail at less than Y million cycles. Make Y small enough, and X can be 0.001%, 0.0000001%, or 0.000000000000001% or.... you get the idea. There is NO inspection period that is short enough that GUARANTEES that NO BLADE EVER will fail due to fatigue before the next inspection. So where you draw the line? 2 blade failures after in hundreds of million of hours doesn't seem so bad.

                  The definition of contained failure is that internal parts of the engine remain inside the engine or exit the engine through the tailpipe..
                  I don't think that anybody ever considered a cowl that separates in flight (as the A320 had many incidents) an uncontained engine failure.

                  I don't know if this failure was contained or not, but single blades failures (critical blade at max RPM) are required to be contained by the FAA regulations, and the requirement also states that such blade failure shall no originate an engine failure or vibration/forces that would separate the engine.

                  It is not stated directly, but evidently the spirit of the requirement is that a single blade failure should not be a critically dangerous event, but rather just the loss of thrust. Whether the failure was contained or not (i.e. whether pieces of the blade or other internal parts flew out radially as shrapnel or not), I am concerned that what seems to have been a single blade failure generated such level of destruction of the engine that killed a passenger and could have cause much more damage to the airplane that could have put in risk the safety of the flight.

                  That concerns me more than the blade failure itself. Not that the blade failure doesn't concern me, it does. But not as much as the fact that the blade failure, which should have been a relatively mundane engine failure and which cannot be avoided 100%, become something so dangerous.
                  Well put.

                  Given how cheap cameras are, it wouldn't be that expensive to record the wings throughout the flight to capture what actually happens. It is not surprising that the engine containment tests on the ground don't replicate the real environment the engine is exposed to when flying in the sky. If you can't replicate the real environment properly to simulate failure, record everything you can in the field and then you'll learn what happens.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    The definition of contained failure is that internal parts of the engine remain inside the engine or exit the engine through the tailpipe..
                    I don't think that anybody ever considered a cowl that separates in flight (as the A320 had many incidents) an uncontained engine failure.
                    We shall see.

                    I don't know if this failure was contained or not, but single blades failures (critical blade at max RPM) are required to be contained by the FAA regulations, and the requirement also states that such blade failure shall no originate an engine failure or vibration/forces that would separate the engine.

                    It is not stated directly, but evidently the spirit of the requirement is that a single blade failure should not be a critically dangerous event, but rather just the loss of thrust. Whether the failure was contained or not (i.e. whether pieces of the blade or other internal parts flew out radially as shrapnel or not), I am concerned that what seems to have been a single blade failure generated such level of destruction of the engine that killed a passenger and could have cause much more damage to the airplane that could have put in risk the safety of the flight.

                    That concerns me more than the blade failure itself. Not that the blade failure doesn't concern me, it does. But not as much as the fact that the blade failure, which should have been a relatively mundane engine failure and which cannot be avoided 100%, become something so dangerous.
                    But isn't that the nature of these things? What begins as a departing fan blade escalates into a catastrophic failure that is most definitely uncontained? Sure, you can design around a certification requirement that the containment structure will withstand the initial impact of the blade, but then what? Fragments ejecting forward that cause the intake cowl to disintegrate? Or fragments ingested that cause compressor blades to separate and pass through the containment, the wings and the fuselage like knives through butter?

                    According to your definition of 'contained engine failure', this was uncontained, unless you think the cowling failed due to vibration alone. In the incident that resulted in the CFM-56 AD I mentioned above, after the blade was initially contained, the blade left the engine containment to destroy surrounding structures.

                    There is NO inspection period that is short enough that GUARANTEES that NO BLADE EVER will fail due to fatigue before the next inspection. So where you draw the line? 2 blade failures after in hundreds of million of hours doesn't seem so bad.
                    I wonder if that is true, and I wonder where you would draw the line. Those two incidents seem very bad to me.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      (Because the lawyers take such a big cut and nobody else gets much at all. It's called a class-action suit.)

                      But it's not just Boeing. The EC-150 crash last month was a clear instance of the FAA failing to heed a VERY clear warning from the NTSB.

                      Uncontained engine failure is one of very few things for which on-board technology cannot provide an adequate defense. If the thing throws shrapnel, good luck. That is why ground-based technology must prevent it from ever happening. The FAA clearly isn't doing enough in that respect.
                      Most cases involving aviation accidents are not typical class actions where the class members get a few bucks each. But hey, the lawyers suck anyway.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                        Also, it is CFM the engine manufacturer and the airline that is at financial risk, not Boeing so them being in bed with government is a not a factor.
                        Correct. I meant GE which is half of cfm.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          But isn't that the nature of these thing? What begins as a departing fan blade escalates into a catastrophic failure that is most definitely uncontained? Sure, you can design around a certification requirement that the containment structure will withstand the initial impact of the blade, but then what? Fragments ejecting forward that cause the intake cowl to disintegrate? Or fragments ingested that cause compressor blades to separate and pass through the containment, the wings and the fuselage like knives through butter?
                          No. In the tests, the initial event is a blade fracture at the root of, if the blades and hub are integral, no less than 80% of the blade length. Not only that blade, but everything that happens after that, has to be contained. You can have a cascade of compressor and turbine blades failing after the initial one, and all have have to be contained. And it works quite well. What cannot be contained, and it is not so required, is the failure of a compressor or turbine disk. Typically blade failures (including cascade failures) are contained, and disk failures are uncontained.



                          According to your definition of 'contained engine failure', this was unconstrained, unless you think the cowling failed due to vibration alone.
                          The definition is not so clear in these cases. Maybe the containment worked ok in avoiding that the blade flies radially out, but instead the blade bounced around the intake damaging it and left the engine at low energy either forward or through the now missing intake duct. I would not consider that an unconstrained failure but a structural failure of the containment structure.

                          But the names are not so important. In any event, this is unacceptable. The engine should fail safely after a single blade failure (as initiating event, more blades can fail after that). Period.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            ***That concerns me more than the blade failure itself.***
                            Bullcrap on tidy little boxes of contained, uncontained, cowl, point of exit and their regulatory and textbook definitions.

                            A ton of tight tolerance stuff is spinning really fast and chunking a blade is gonna be ugly. Nice that it tends to be contained, but:

                            We've taken out wing spars on A380s, killed people in the back of MD-80s, shredded DC-10 hydraulics and keep trashing the engine cowl liveries where the WN web link is painted.

                            You can study and bucket all you want, but 'we' still need to avoid turbine/blade failures if 'we' can.

                            (Not arguing with your whole statement, just the emphasis.)
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              But hey, the lawyers suck anyway.
                              Annoying getting painted with a broad brush, isn't it, Counselor?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Those two incidents seem very bad to me.
                                Based on what? Or at least compared to what?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X