Originally Posted by
DaveReidUK
Notwithstanding the fan blade(s) embedded in the guide vanes, the engine did still satisfy that particular FAR, in that it neither caught fire nor detached from its mounting attachments.
Well now we're venturing into the bounds of semantics - when I studied the subject of how power is delivered, we sat down and opened learned reference works titled "propulsion" as opposed to "engines".
As I understand it, an aircraft engine these days comprises several modules each and every one of which is mounted in a obligatory fixed sense in relation to each adjacent module and at sundry well chosen points directly to the airframe. Plenty of suitable elasticity is built in, of course.
So the plan is that the collection of major engine bits on landing should still ideally be reasonably complete even after an FBO. That's as opposed to a scenario where the fan and fan containment module are merely expected to self-adhere to their master's heel through the worst of the thick and thin, but having given up their angular antics, are allowed to pop off in some as yet undeciphered direction when the final urging to leave gets overwhelming!
Bearing in mind that the few hundred kilo module delivering 80% of the propulsion is indeed our Elvis in this case, one wonders if the purport of § 33.94 seriously allows for an exit like that ... methinks not.
For the pernickety and legal-minded, the question might be 'What is meant by "mounting attachments" in § 33.94?', but I am sure more serious-minded engineers are somewhat beyond that.