SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also it's not the cowl that contains the fan blade in the event of a FBO, it is the engine case.
You might want to review your source(s).
If the 787 used the same engine as the 737, it would have four of them. 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Also it's not the cowl that contains the fan blade in the event of a FBO, it is the engine case.
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).
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Down under
Age: 54
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Age: 63
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
- 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...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: london
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
