Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event

Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:27
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Stumpy Grinder View Post
I checked, I'm not convinced that it's the same failure. My rationale (and I accept it is early days and may change as the facts change) massive damage to the inlet forward of the fan (blades go slightly rearwards and out and are contained (FBO test) not forward) and the position of the broken window, well aft of the fan.

Explosion hypothesis, shredding of the cowl and what appears to be scorching, the source - I have no idea, there should never be an explosive atmosphere in that zone of the engine.
Reckon that some hefty lump of the ejected cowl, or anti/de ice bleed air components will have more a part to play than a blade.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:29
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 55
Posts: 2
Sad loss of life!
But job well done for the SouthWest Crew.
It looks like the flaps and slats worked and that is a bonus in a single engine landing.

This is indeed a complex situation with a lot of pressure on the Flight Crew to get on the ground ASAP.

On the history of the engine: The worlds most sold turbo fan engine bare none.
10 000 737 sold likely 30 000 plus engines !

I love my CFM56-7, if it starts it runs! Always!
BUT!
Tdracer:
As you say those cowlings are supposed to contain any fan blade failure, that is the secondary job( aerodynamics being main purpose?) .
And any compressor or turbine blade SHALL be contained and or spit out rearwards to be certified! Am I right so fare?
The AF A380 the other day had a similar event.

Anyway, do we know of any other CFM 56 incidents say the last 30 years of cowl separation due to fan blade separation or the likes.

Looking forward to more info on this one.
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:33
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post
Reckon that some hefty lump of the ejected cowl, or anti/de ice bleed air components will have more a part to play than a blade.
Want to correct what I said above, I was comparing the wrong pictures, the failure effect does indeed look similar.

Any idea what was concluded on the previous incident? How did CFM address the uncountained failure? FBO should always be contained, turbine blade is considered infinite energy and uncontainable, another matter all together.
Stumpy Grinder is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:41
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by BluSdUp View Post
And any compressor or turbine blade SHALL be contained and or spit out rearwards to be certified! Am I right so fare?
Incorrect, a turbine blade release is considered as having infinite energy and is not contained - see Qantas QF32 A380 as an example. For cert compliance you have to show that no catastrophic event can occur as a result of a turbine blade release. For instance, if an APU turbine blade releases then it has to be demonstrated that the trajectory of the release does not compromise primary structure or flight controls, ie the release is satisfactorily mitigated by design.

Also it's not the cowl that contains the fan blade in the event of a FBO, it is the engine case.
Stumpy Grinder is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:46
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,789
Originally Posted by CityofFlight View Post
A few airlines are replacing the RR engine on the 787.
You might want to review your source(s).

Originally Posted by CityofFlight View Post
Is this the same engine that many carriers are putting in place of the RR, for the Dreamliner?
If the 787 used the same engine as the 737, it would have four of them.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:48
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
You might want to review your source(s).



If the 787 used the same engine as the 737, it would have four of them.
....and we'd call it an A340-200/300..........
Stumpy Grinder is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:51
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Stumpy Grinder View Post
Incorrect, a turbine blade release is considered as having infinite energy and is not contained - see Qantas QF32 A380 as an example. For cert compliance you have to show that no catastrophic event can occur as a result of a turbine blade release. For instance, if an APU turbine blade releases then it has to be demonstrated that the trajectory of the release does not compromise primary structure or flight controls, ie the release is satisfactorily mitigated by design.

Also it's not the cowl that contains the fan blade in the event of a FBO, it is the engine case.
Blades are supposed to be contained.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_off_testing

You are talking about turbine discs and fan discs, the central parts of metal holding all the blades.
But I guess you know that as you refer to a turbine disc failure (QF32).
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:55
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Its appears the unfortuate pax may have been wedged in / partially out of the window at some point.

Looks a mess aft of the window in question
https://t.co/B1dFLZlaEq
enginesuck is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:56
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by wiedehopf View Post
Blades are supposed to be contained.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_off_testing

You are talking about turbine discs and fan discs, the central parts of metal holding all the blades.
But I guess you know that as you refer to a turbine disc failure (QF32).
Yes, indeed.
Stumpy Grinder is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 22:57
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 55
Posts: 2
Quantas was not suppose to happen Stumpy, You know that!
DC10 in Iowa was also a reminder of things unlikely!!
Anyway you know perfectly well what i mean!

Infinite energy, and explosions? Now what is that all about!!!
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:03
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Down under
Age: 50
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by BluSdUp View Post
Quantas was not suppose to happen Stumpy, You know that!
DC10 in Iowa was also a reminder of things unlikely!!
Anyway you know perfectly well what i mean!

Infinite energy, and explosions? Now what is that all about!!!
...... Q A N T A S .............
whiteb is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:06
  #72 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,909
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic View Post
From the BBC,

When flight attendants told passengers to brace for impact, Mr Bourman said he and his wife worried for the worst.

As you might, but for an engine failure?
Well, some pax have read too many tabloid papers and tabloid TV! I doubt there was time to explain that it was a bad failure and they were getting to a low altitude and would park up just as soon as possible.

When there is a helluva bang and the rubber jungle with emergency descent? Very few on board would be able to follow the sequence and feel comfortable. As we all know, flying is very safe. Whilst uncontained failures are rare, I think it's even more so to actually kill a pax with it.

If I had been onboard, I would have expected folks to be panicked and presuming they might die. I know that Ms PAXboy (not married!) would have been terrified and I would have had to do a lot of comforting during and after the fact. I think we need to be generous.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:08
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by whiteb View Post
...... Q A N T A S .............
LOL

"considered to have" infinite energy and I retracted the explosion hypothesis, do keep up.

I apologise to BluSdUp if English is not your first language.
Stumpy Grinder is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:28
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by BluSdUp View Post
Tdracer:
As you say those cowlings are supposed to contain any fan blade failure, that is the secondary job( aerodynamics being main purpose?) .
And any compressor or turbine blade SHALL be contained and or spit out rearwards to be certified! Am I right so fare?
The AF A380 the other day had a similar event.

Anyway, do we know of any other CFM 56 incidents say the last 30 years of cowl separation due to fan blade separation or the likes.
Southwest Airlines flight 3472, 2016. Same engine, same type, same airline, and very similar event (IF this one is a blade off) including fuselage damage and depressurisation (occurred around the same altitude as well).

As far as I can find there are no other similar CFM 56 incidents, but I haven't done a lot of research to be sure on that. However, if these are the only two then question is are Southwest really unlucky or doing something different. As you say, there are a lot of CFM 56s out there.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:36
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Age: 59
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789 View Post
Southwest Airlines flight 3472, 2016. Same engine, same type, same airline, and very similar event (IF this one is a blade off) including fuselage damage and depressurisation (occurred around the same altitude as well).

As far as I can find there are no other similar CFM 56 incidents, but I haven't done a lot of research to be sure on that. However, if these are the only two then question is are Southwest really unlucky or doing something different. As you say, there are a lot of CFM 56s out there.
Agree. And while aviation analysts rushed to provide answers for news media, one of the news outlets just posted images of the SWA 2016 engine along side a pic of today's event. Be damned if they don't look very similar.
CityofFlight is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:46
  #76 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 970
Was the last US fatal uncontained engine failure DL1288 (Pensacola, 1996)? I don't recall any others recently.
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:49
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by Stumpy Grinder View Post
Want to correct what I said above, I was comparing the wrong pictures, the failure effect does indeed look similar.

Any idea what was concluded on the previous incident? How did CFM address the uncountained failure? FBO should always be contained, turbine blade is considered infinite energy and uncontainable, another matter all together.
Assuming we're all talking about the same previous incident (SWA 3472 / N766SW) the NTSB investigation page is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...agoula-fl.aspx

- no final report yet (that I can see), only an interim update
- appears they may have stopped after deciding cause of fan blade failure (and remedy?)
- sounds like they believe blade exited backwards not tangential, and wasn't responsible for the fuselage damage (therefore arguably making it a contained failure)
- there is no mention in the interim update of any further work on investigating the cowling failure or what hit the fuselage, it doesn't sound like they were interested...
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:55
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by t1grm View Post
What a scary incident but, tragic as one death is, this seems to impress on me the resilience of modern aircraft. Surely a similar failure in the 70's/80's would have bought the aircraft down?
This comment was lost in the shuffle for a bit.
Actually, the fundamental fuselage structure of the 737 is largely unchanged from the airplane's original design - with the first flight of the prototype in April, 1967.
thepotato232 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:59
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: london
Posts: 58
design of engines

Grateful if someone can clarify for me ( SLF) if engines are supposed to , or not supposed to, contain blade separation ? I always thought that engines had "kevlar" type of protection to contain blade separation and that was a certification requirement. But some posts here seem to suggest otherwise. Grateful for any clarification.
freshgasflow is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2018, 00:07
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Stumpy Grinder View Post
I checked, I'm not convinced that it's the same failure. My rationale (and I accept it is early days and may change as the facts change) massive damage to the inlet forward of the fan (blades go slightly rearwards and out and are contained (FBO test) not forward) and the position of the broken window, well aft of the fan.

Explosion hypothesis, shredding of the cowl and what appears to be scorching, the source - I have no idea, there should never be an explosive atmosphere in that zone of the engine.
The 380 out of Singapore (Qantas) experienced a departed IPT. It was number two. And was an extremely serious event. No fatalities. RR Trent, supposedly there was an “oil fire”, in the stator cave which caused an over speed of the turbine, which turned its rotor into liquid metal bearing. It’s in here somewheres.

Partial sever of the forward wing spar, and uncontrolled throttle on number one, plus a serious fuel leak made the emergency landing quite an accomplishment.

That one? Certainly not a fan issue, a very high energy turbine.
Concours77 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.