Uncontained engine failure at YSSY

[megan]

Since it's the fan pulling the aircraft forward, of course the fan blades go forward and outwards if released

In all the cases of blade release from the fan, in the reports I've seen, the blades were released centrifugally, no forward motion. Reports on two DC-10's refer, N60NA and N1819U as examples.

[Turbine D]

Perhaps this information will help the discussion:

AD 2011-0173R1 reasons: "Two operators of A330 aeroplanes fitted with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines reported finding extensive damage to engine air intake cowls as a result of acoustic panel collapse, most probably caused by panel disbonding. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the detachment of the engine air intake cowl from the engine, possibly resulting in ingestion of parts by, and consequence damage to, the engine, or injury to persons on the ground."

AD 2016-0086R1 reasons: "During shop visit, cracks were found in several primary structural parts of Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engine air intake cowls, specifically in the forward bulkhead web, web stiffeners and outer boundary angles (OBA). In addition, several attachment links were found severely worn, and some became detached. In two cases, the thermal anti- ice (TAI) piccolo tube was found fractured. Investigation results show that the cracks are most likely due to acoustic excitation and vibration. A broken piccolo tube, if not detected and corrected, in conjunction with forward air intake cowl bulkhead damage, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer barrel, possibly resulting in damage to the engine or reduced control of the aeroplane."

[EEngr]

From the Trent failure photos posted by underfire (#22) it looks like the nacelle inner lining failure began at a seam or panel edge judging by the clean edge of the hole. The lining would probably be peeled off in the direction of the fan rotation, CW looking into the inlet. And the trailing edge of the tear (near the top) looks ragged.

[Turbine D]

In all the cases of blade release from the fan, in the reports I've seen, the blades were released centrifugally, no forward motion.

Except for the DC-10 over New Mexico where a CF6 fan blade was liberated and exited forward, walked up the fuselage, broke a window and the passenger was sucked out with his remains never to be found.

Also, there was at least one incident where the shaft to the fan on an RB211 engine sheared releasing the entire fan which spun out forward and away from the aircraft.

[Almostfamous]

Uncontained things going in directions

Lots of discussion about which way and what way things go when they go out. This incident came to mind, which involved an MD-88. Perhaps it might dispel or confirm certain lines or reasoning expressed. Oh, and never sit in the back of the MD/DC jets...

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR9801.pdf

[underfire]

I believe that Safran manufactures the nacelles for the A330...

[lomapaseo]

Don't mix up fan disk failures (DC10 /MD88) with fan blade failures alone.

It's the tip portion of the blade that slides forward not the inner parts.

Meanwhile back to this incident. Any distortion of the fan airfoil from the breakup of the cowl inner barrel, at high power, is sure to cause the engine to go bang with or without debris ingestion.

[GrahamO]

Originally Posted by Caribbean Boy

It doesn't matter who built any part of the engine, RR is the supplier and is responsible for any design or production defect.

Except its not part of the engine, not designed by RR and nor supplied by RR.

But apart from those errors, your comment is 100% correct.

[megan]

Except for the DC-10 over New Mexico where a CF6 fan blade was liberated and exited forward, walked up the fuselage, broke a window and the passenger was sucked out with his remains never to be found

The unfortunate passenger was sitting at the sixth window forward of the S3 door (row 17, seat H) when the #3 engine let go, just behind the wing root leading edge, and in line with the plane of rotation. #1 engine damaged by shrapnel also, along with fuselage below the window and wing leading edge between root and engine #3. No damage forward of the plane of rotation.

[Caribbean Boy]

Originally Posted by GrahamO

Except its not part of the engine, not designed by RR and nor supplied by RR.

But apart from those errors, your comment is 100% correct.

Are you seriously telling me that any engine supplier delivers engines without a cowling?

[TURIN]

Yes.

When changing an engine one often has to swap the cowl from the u/s engine to the new one.

[Caribbean Boy]

Yes, I know about what happens when a swap takes place, but the cowling came from RR in the first place, so RR is liable if they supplied a faulty product.

[swh]

I think the part numbers are SJ30020,SJ30361,SJ30810 and they are made by Bombardier. The cowl and EBU do not form part of the engine TCDS, so technically they are not part of the engine.

[MATELO]

being where the logo is.. you could understand the confusion...

[GrahamO]

Originally Posted by Caribbean Boy

..but the cowling came from RR in the first place, so RR is liable if they supplied a faulty product.

It didnt.

Sorry to burst your preconception. Its supplied by the airframe manufacturer.

[Caribbean Boy]

Airbus and RR would both be liable if the cowling is faulty. Action would be taken against MU and/or Airbus who in turn may take action against RR.

[Turbine D]

Yes, I know about what happens when a swap takes place, but the cowling came from RR in the first place, so RR is liable if they supplied a faulty product.

I very much doubt that is the case. In general terms, the engine nacelle is designed by the airframe manufacturer, in this instance, Airbus. Airbus determines the shape of the exterior, and the engine manufacturer (Rolls Royce) has significant input into the interior aerodynamic flowpath design starting with the entrance lip and perhaps input into the thrust reverser requirements. Once the nacelle design is firmed up, it is turned over to a nacelle manufacturer. It is Safran for the Rolls Royce Trent engine. The nacelles are supplied to Airbus who is the customer.

Airbus and RR would both be liable if the cowling is faulty.

Not true, if anything, responsibility would be between Airbus and Safran depending on the fault, design or manufacturing.

[underfire]

In reality, this issue has been an issue, and directives on corrective actions are in place.

It is evident from the Airbus directive, (not a RR directive), who is responsible.

It appears that either the directive is not sufficient ( there are many if/thens) or was not followed.

[Airmotive]

Originally Posted by Caribbean Boy

Airbus and RR would both be liable if the cowling is faulty. Action would be taken against MU and/or Airbus who in turn may take action against RR.

Stop.
Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
The cowl is designed and supplied by Airbus, and built by Bombardier. There are no RR part numbers on the inlet cowl.

[keith williams]

Go away.

Now Now. This is supposed to be fun!

If you cannot play nicely then don't play at all