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

  • #91
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Bullcrap on tidy little boxes of contained, uncontained, cowl, point of exit and their regulatory and textbook definitions.
    So I said...
    But the names are not so important. In any event, this is unacceptable.
    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 remind me which of them was a blade failure and not a disk failure. None? That's what I thought.

    You can study and bucket all you want, but 'we' still need to avoid turbine/blade failures if 'we' can.
    And we do. Most of the times. By large. 350 million hours at how many RPM (that is how many revolutions per hour) in how many blades blades per engine is how many gazzillions of cycles that blades did NOT fail? Sorry, the perfection department is closed for good. Now, we have the back-up and containment department that tries to avoid that things get too ugly when things go wrong, because things do go wrong once every gazzillion times.

    Oh, and by the way, who was the one that said... Not that the blade failure doesn't concern me, it does. Oh it was me!?

    There are two ladies in an elevator. A guy gets in and tells to one of the women "You are a fair lady" and the other woman says "And why do you think I am ugly?" That's the kind of logic (or non-logic) you are using here.

    --- 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


    • #92
      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
      Annoying getting painted with a broad brush, isn't it, Counselor?
      not at all. i have never given 1/2 a shit about what people say about lawyers. i'm not the type they talk shit about. in fact, i'm a more vocal critic of lawyers than probably any person you've ever met.

      and while it appears that i am defending them, i'm merely speaking the truth: lawyers are hated fairly universally UNTIL someone needs one, then al is forgotten and forgiven. those that talk shit about class action lawsuits doing nothing but enrich lawyers are just plain ignorant. class actions when successful are more of an incentive for big companies to straighten out their shitty practices then some paltry government fines. corporations feel only one thing: losses to their bottom line, and nothing works better than a class settlement to wake up management to their crappy ways.

      finally, in EVERY class action EVERY class member is advised in writing well in advance of the settlement being approved by the court that they have the absolute right to opt out of the class and pursue their own cause of action.

      spend five minutes searching for famous class action suits and then come back and tell us all that you still really think they do nothing except make lawyers rich (which i admit they do)

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        1) Did you see my comment to Bobby about the Northeast corridor and high levels of air traffic.

        [Below edited after Bobby's post]

        2) In airplane school, they USED to teach you the THEORY behind stuff (I know this stuff doesn't really interest Evan all that much, it's not procedures and checklists). Regulations say 12,500 feet for EXTENDED time periods. You can even go up to 14,000 feet briefly AND keep your passengers at 14,000 feet without 02. While I cannot quote chapter, verse, regulation number or even the correct altitudes (without Bobby's reference) it's inconsequential to level off at 11,000 feet instead of 10,000.


        AND MORE UNWRITTEN COWBOY IMPROVISATION COMMENTS: I contend that ATC INFERRED (magic word there) (or it was simply understood) ...Level at 11,000 if you can, please, otherwise there's a bunch of planes you will be mixing with- I'll have to scramble and there's some risk of a TCAS incident.

        WN Inferred (or understood): That's fine, we can stay at 11,000 with no meaningful hypoxic stress on our passengers...you know and we know we're gonna be going lower in a few minutes.

        Not super secret stuff here, but professionals doing what professionals do (and that's NOT ONLY and NOT ALWAYS memorizing and barfing back exact words and exact regulations from checklists and books).
        Also:
        What cabin altitude does the warning horn sound and the passenger masks drop? About 14,000 ft ?
        So if you were flying at 12,000 ft and this happened the masks would not even deploy (automatically).

        NTSB said that when the engine failed the aircraft executed a rapid roll to 40degrees bank.

        The pilots train for recovery from unusual attitude. They train for rapid decompression. They train for engine failure.
        But they don't get training for all three at the same time.
        It seems from the NTSB briefing (@NTSB_Newsroom) that they got a false engine fire warning and Cabin altitude warning at the same time with 40degree roll thrown in.
        The pilots showed excellent airmanship in dealing with multiple failures and landing safely.
        Maybe they did maybe they didn't tell ATC about the decompression. ATC has mode C so I think they probably figured it out.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          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.
          Gabriel, I get everything you are saying, but I don't think there is a way to ensure that a blade failure remains contained (as this and the previous incident have shown). The AD does not even recommend exploring that possibility. Certainly there is no way to ensure containment of a rotor disk failure. Both have occurred over the last 18 months as a result of metal fatigue, and we are seeing both high-cycle fatigue and low-cycle fatigue (due to manufacture weaknesses). I am focused on one thing: the frequency in which these components are inspected for fatigue seems inadequate.

          Consider the AA 767 incident from October 2016:

          Originally posted by NTSB report
          Investigators further determined the defect had been propagating microscopic cracks in the disk for as many as 5,700 flight cycles – one takeoff and one landing – prior to the accident. Although the disk had been inspected in January 2011, the NTSB said the internal cracks were also most likely undetectable at that time because the current required inspection methods are unable to identify all subsurface defects.
          So five and a half years (how many cycles?) since the last deep inspection, and cracks that may have been detectable for thousands of flight cycles. Undetected because uninspected. Yet detectable. Preventable.

          In that incident, a 57lb section of the rotor disk was thrown almost 3000ft AFTER passing through the wing and the fuel tank! We can't have that happening, ever. Even low-cycle fatigue exhibits warning signs well before failure. I realize the stats on these things are extremely rare, but they could be—and must be—virtually zero. There is no possible reliable contigency for uncontained engine failure in the air. It must be prevented on the ground.

          So my question is: what is the current required frequency for fatigue inspections of crucial engine parts?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Gabe said-3BS said-Gabe said.
            Deep breath...

            You somewhat deemphasized rapidly spinning parts for how containment was so great...

            I would hope CFM-56 blades might be fixed to stop this horrible trend of shredding the intake dialing (and A-380 wing spar incidents from such a new aircraft.)

            Yeah, I used razz vocabulary, but I partially agree with Evan that maybe we need an extra bead of welding at the root of the blades, and maybe a few more inspections...(whatever makes sense from a scientific engineering standpoint).
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Gabriel, I get everything you are saying, but I don't think there is a way to ensure that a blade failure remains contained (as this and the previous incident have shown). The AD does not even recommend exploring that possibility. Certainly there is no way to ensure containment of a rotor disk failure. Both have occurred over the last 18 months as a result of metal fatigue, and we are seeing both high-cycle fatigue and low-cycle fatigue (due to manufacture weaknesses). I am focused on one thing: the frequency in which these components are inspected for fatigue seems inadequate.

              Consider the AA 767 incident from October 2016:



              So five and a half years (how many cycles?) since the last deep inspection, and cracks that may have been detectable for thousands of flight cycles. Undetected because uninspected. Yet detectable. Preventable.

              In that incident, a 57lb section of the rotor disk was thrown almost 3000ft AFTER passing through the wing and the fuel tank! We can't have that happening, ever. Even low-cycle fatigue exhibits warning signs well before failure. I realize the stats on these things are extremely rare, but they could be—and must be—virtually zero. There is no possible reliable contigency for uncontained engine failure in the air. It must be prevented on the ground.

              So my question is: what is the current required frequency for fatigue inspections of crucial engine parts?
              If you read the full report, they noted that post 2000, the type of manufacturing defects that caused the accident had greatly reduced. They also extensively discuss the fact that they are quite aware that will be no containing broken rotor disks as they have done analysis to predict the likely path of exit of such parts. The part that cracked in the 2016 incident was manufactured in 1997 prior to changes in the manufacturing process. There is no such things as virtually zero, and so we have the current rate of problems which will continue to reduce due to steady improvements in manufacturing and inspection.

              Frankly, I'm not sure why we're talking about compressor disks though since it is the fan blades that are far more likely to be damaged because they are much thinner, lighter, and they bear the brunt of anything the engine intakes on the front end.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                Deep breath...

                You somewhat deemphasized rapidly spinning parts for how containment was so great...

                I would hope CFM-56 blades might be fixed to stop this horrible trend of shredding the intake dialing (and A-380 wing spar incidents from such a new aircraft.)

                Yeah, I used razz vocabulary, but I partially agree with Evan that maybe we need an extra bead of welding at the root of the blades, and maybe a few more inspections...(whatever makes sense from a scientific engineering standpoint).
                There will be no containing failed compression disks when they fail due to the amount of energy released -- they weigh 150+ lbs and are spinning really fast. Loss of life will only be minimized by knowing where the pieces will fly if they fail, and locating the engines strategically to avoid loss of critical systems or by detecting defects and damage before critical failure occurs.

                Trying to contain fan blades makes a lot more sense, because unexpected ingestion of things like birds or drones will likely cause a blade to break. A broken blade is much easier to contain because the energy is far lower (much lighter part). Welding was not the problem here as the fasteners did not fail at the hub. The blade itself cracked due to fatigue over time.

                I still think the issue is that the cowling gets damaged and then subsequently ripped off by what I assume to be the wind, something that wouldn't be caught in testing on the ground so I'll be they've never looked at that too carefully. Still, I'm with Gabriel on this, they'll have to find an inspection frequency that makes sense.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                  If you read the full report, they noted that post 2000, the type of manufacturing defects that caused the accident had greatly reduced. They also extensively discuss the fact that they are quite aware that will be no containing broken rotor disks as they have done analysis to predict the likely path of exit of such parts. The part that cracked in the 2016 incident was manufactured in 1997 prior to changes in the manufacturing process. There is no such things as virtually zero, and so we have the current rate of problems which will continue to reduce due to steady improvements in manufacturing and inspection.

                  Frankly, I'm not sure why we're talking about compressor disks though since it is the fan blades that are far more likely to be damaged because they are much thinner, lighter, and they bear the brunt of anything the engine intakes on the front end.
                  Because were talking about inspection intervals. Whether they catch a fan blade crack or a rotor disk crack is immaterial. It's encouraging that manufacturing methods have improved, but we still need to inspect these things more frequently. Two pronged approach: build them better, inspect them more to catch them before they fail, and I'm willing to bet these things won't happen anymore.

                  As usual, it's a matter or will. And the corruption of will.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Quench View Post
                    The pilots train for recovery from unusual attitude. They train for rapid decompression. They train for engine failure.
                    But they don't get training for all three at the same time.

                    Have you ever had a Part 121 PC in a full motion simulator?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Gabriel, I get everything you are saying, but I don't think there is a way to ensure that a blade failure remains contained (as this and the previous incident have shown).
                      Why? If a 777 or A380 blade can be contained, I don;t see why a 737 wouldn't.

                      Anyway, this is deviating the discussion. As far as we know so far whether the blade failure was contained or not in this particular incident doesn't seem to have a thing to do with the outcome. It was the destruction of the containment , and not its ability to contain, what caused the damage. It is quite evident that the damage in the slats and the shattering of the window were caused by relatively large and relatively low-energy objects, not shrapnel. A blade falure should not cause an engine disintegration, even leaving aside the containment discussion.

                      I want discuss the rest of your comment that deals with disk failures and neither with blade failures nor engine destruction after such blade failure, which are the things on the table in this case.

                      --- 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


                      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        Have you ever had a Part 121 PC in a full motion simulator?
                        No, so?

                        I love you BB, but can you please stop asking for credentials when judging or commenting on people's comments?
                        If you don't agree, rather than asking those stupid, nonsensical and inconsequential questions, you could be much more constructive by saying that you don;t agree, saying why you don't agree, and saying what you thin is the right version and why.
                        Example:

                        "Pilots do train for these three failures at the same time. Not it every session perhaps, but I would not go more than 2 years without training this combination in the simulator".

                        Then one could answer with something like "Good for your airline, bit that's not the case for all pilots" and post this youtube video to support that:
                        On tuesday 17/04/2018 the Southwest flight 1380 suffered what appears to be a unconfined Engine Failure of its nr 1 engine. The failure threw debris towards ...


                        On the other hand, you asking "Have you ever had a Part 121 PC in a full motion simulator?" and the other person responding "No, so?" (as happened here) doesn't contribute an inch to the discussion, and really annoys some forum members like me.

                        Or I could have just said read my signature here below.

                        --- 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


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          No, so?

                          I love you BB, but can you please stop asking for credentials when judging or commenting on people's comments?
                          Just out of idle curiosity, in the event (Krishna Forbid) one of your kids were to get sick, would you take him/her to a credentialed physician or would credentials not matter in that instance either? I agree that paperwork isn't everything, but your rather flippant attitude towards other people's accomplishments and expertise (which those credentials reflect) reeks of either envy or disrespect or both. Said envy and disrespect annoy some forum members like me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            Why? If a 777 or A380 blade can be contained, I don;t see why a 737 wouldn't.
                            If the blade—or fragments of the blade or other blades—is thrown forward, the engine casing isn't doing you any good. That is what the prior AD addressed, by requiring immediate inspections, because that is really the only way to 'contain' the problem.

                            Anyway, this is deviating the discussion. As far as we know so far whether the blade failure was contained or not in this particular incident doesn't seem to have a thing to do with the outcome. It was the destruction of the containment , and not its ability to contain, what caused the damage. It is quite evident that the damage in the slats and the shattering of the window were caused by relatively large and relatively low-energy objects, not shrapnel. A blade falure should not cause an engine disintegration, even leaving aside the containment discussion.
                            Destruction of adjacent structures, namely the inlet section, which is not intended to contain anything. I think the engine casing held. The picture I'm getting is that a fan blade departed, the debris got thrown forward into the undefended inlet section, the inlet section was damaged and then aerodynamic forces and vibration caused it to fail, throwing debris and causing damage to the leading edge and window, causing the decompression and subsequent blow-out of the window. This is why I speculate that the decompression did not occur immediately, and explains why the pilot did not report decompression, declare emergency or initiate an emergency descent. I think her original transmission of "descending" may have been due to the engine failure alone and inability to maintain RVSM altitude. The delay between the engine event and the decompression event is something I guess we have to wait for...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              No, so?

                              I love you BB, but can you please stop asking for credentials when judging or commenting on people's comments?
                              If you don't agree, rather than asking those stupid, nonsensical and inconsequential questions, you could be much more constructive by saying that you don;t agree, saying why you don't agree, and saying what you thin is the right version and why.
                              Example:

                              "Pilots do train for these three failures at the same time. Not it every session perhaps, but I would not go more than 2 years without training this combination in the simulator".

                              Then one could answer with something like "Good for your airline, bit that's not the case for all pilots" and post this youtube video to support that:
                              On tuesday 17/04/2018 the Southwest flight 1380 suffered what appears to be a unconfined Engine Failure of its nr 1 engine. The failure threw debris towards ...


                              On the other hand, you asking "Have you ever had a Part 121 PC in a full motion simulator?" and the other person responding "No, so?" (as happened here) doesn't contribute an inch to the discussion, and really annoys some forum members like me.

                              Or I could have just said read my signature here below.
                              Gabe, you are reading way more into it than what I was referring to. Look at the part of the quote of his. He specifically said that we are not trained for "multiple" emergency's at a time. " Originally Posted by Quench View Post
                              The pilots train for recovery from unusual attitude. They train for rapid decompression. They train for engine failure. But they don't get training for all three at the same time". So now maybe you will see my "contribution" and I will accept your apology!

                              A yearly PC (proficiency check) is a 2 day affair at most Part 121 carriers. Day one is what is referred to as the "warm-up." You will go over most of the maneuvers that you will do in the jeopardy PC the next day. Depending on the instructor, and how fast they can get the 2 of you through in a 5 hour session, they will do some of the maneuvers for the PC and if they are done satisfactorily, they will not need to be done the following day. Stalls, wind-shear, steep turns, terrain and traffic avoidance to name a couple. They next day starts with an oral for the crew of 2, followed by another 5 hour ride in the box. You may get 10 to 20 minutes with everything working. Dog shit icing weather in next to nothing visibility. Maybe you will even have to taxi the damn sim including a push back, disconnect and find your way to the runway at a simple airport like JFK or Frankfurt. Read that old before take-off checklist and then the real fun begins. You will more than likely see 1 or 2 knots above V1 and there she goes! POP ENGINE FAILURE! Keep her straight on the runway, wait for the Vr call, rotate and keep that runway heading. Engine failure, go around on 3 to an engine fire on the second engine on the same side. Oh you know what, looks like the guys has a set of hands on him, let’s throw in a hydraulic failure too. Damn pretty sharp First Officer, you see how well those two worked together? Really nice CRM oh shit, the damn flaps won’t come up on one side and… shit! Now we lost a damn generator too. Okay checklists complete, everything looks good, got her all trimmed up for the 2 engine approach. Check the weather in JFK and tell them we will need to dump for 30 minutes and come back. Shit what the hell was that? F*****g aft baggage door just opened. Okay masks on, check communications. Get out the check list.
                              Yep, we NEVER train for more than one emergency at a time!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                Just out of idle curiosity, in the event (Krishna Forbid) one of your kids were to get sick, would you take him/her to a credentialed physician or would credentials not matter in that instance either? I agree that paperwork isn't everything, but your rather flippant attitude towards other people's accomplishments and expertise (which those credentials reflect) reeks of either envy or disrespect or both. Said envy and disrespect annoy some forum members like me.
                                To trust an opinion based merely on expertise or credentials -- without the details to validate -- is the definition of argument from authority. One of the greatest of logical fallacies.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X