SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So reading this statement from SWA
https://twitter.com/SouthwestAir/sta...87170947637248
Does this imply that the AD was already performed on the fan blade that failed and was not effective in detecting the problem?
https://twitter.com/SouthwestAir/sta...87170947637248
Does this imply that the AD was already performed on the fan blade that failed and was not effective in detecting the problem?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say it was a good call. You look out and see damage to the leading edge. You want to slow down as much as possible, but are unsure if you can get control problems when you extend your leading edges. You try FL 5 and LE in mid position. It works.
Large Engine Uncontained Debris Analysis
DOT/FAA/AR-99/11
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/AR99-11.pdf
DOT/FAA/AR-99/11
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/AR99-11.pdf
Está servira para distraerle.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 77
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southwest gives US$5000 plus a US$1000 travel voucher to each passenger. This article also has a nice summary of other rapid decompression events in airline history. There have been many others in business jets and military aircraft.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-fatal-flight
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-fatal-flight
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems strange to me that so many people here seem focused on generating magic bullet theories about how the departed fan blade struck a cabin window well aft of the event when most of the damage to the cowling was due to engine imbalance.
Is it so hard to believe that the massive forces shaking the cowling apart could to throw debris into the air-stream with sufficient force to dislodge a cabin window?
Given the delay between the initial blade failure and the window failure, I think the evidence available supports the hypothesis that pieces of the cowl, or other secondary debris struck the window as the unbalanced engine wound down.
I've seen enough footage of imbalanced rotating objects destroying things to know you should never underestimate the devastating effects such phenomena can have on their surroundings.
Note that in the first two videos below, the engines are mounted in test stands which are far more rigid than an airplane's engine pylon. In flight, I would expect a lot more movement of the engine during wind-down:
These videos are of helicopters, but illustrate how quickly things can go wrong when rotating parts are no longer balanced:
800 million, in fact, as of a couple of years ago.
Up In The Air: The World’s Hardest-Working Jet Engine Has Logged 91,000 Years in Flight
Up In The Air: The World’s Hardest-Working Jet Engine Has Logged 91,000 Years in Flight
As for the damage to the nose cowl being largely due to out-of-balance forces rather than to the blade scything through it, I think your earlier advice applies:
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems strange to me that so many people here seem focused on generating magic bullet theories about how the departed fan blade struck a cabin window well aft of the event when most of the damage to the cowling was due to engine imbalance.
The NTSB experts speculated it would be 12-15 months for their report to be concluded. it seems some patience is required by the amateurs.
In 355 replies there is very little comment about the 'piloting input' and about what was done and what you might have done; except for some total rubbish about RT. I'm glad there was this level of expertise up front. Given the severely reduced command time in some carriers worldwide this could have been a very different outcome.
The NTSB experts speculated it would be 12-15 months for their report to be concluded. it seems some patience is required by the amateurs.
In 355 replies there is very little comment about the 'piloting input' and about what was done and what you might have done; except for some total rubbish about RT. I'm glad there was this level of expertise up front. Given the severely reduced command time in some carriers worldwide this could have been a very different outcome.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Workload on the ground: I could not care less about that. The ground has infinite resources compared to the flight deck. The moment that an emergency becomes apparent, whether explicitly declared or not, that controller will already have help from either his supe or colleagues.
Moving workload from the controller to the flight deck, even if it is reduced by a factor 10, is a big no-no imho.
In the end, it boils down to this: the flight crew made it clear that they had a problem and needed to land immediately. From that point on, it is up to the controller to ensure that they get priority handling and as much air space as they need. And if you listen closely, the controller did warn them about traffic below them which was a factor during the initial descent. There was absolutely nothing unprofessional about either the flight crew or the controller.
And on a side note: ICAO standard phraseology exists for one purpose only: to ensure that flight crews and ATC have an unambiguous understanding of each other's intentions and communications. In many cases, that results in longer than strictly necessary speech to accommodate non-native English speakers. Being a non-native English speaker myself, I do appreciate that. At the same time, I cannot critique a native English speaking crew talking to a native English speaking controller diverting from standard ICAO phraseology in an emergency situation where communications and intent are clear on both ends.
In short: there was no need to explicitly yell "Mayday-Mayday-Mayday" or "we are declaring an emergency". It would only consume much needed brain cycles.
PineappleFrenzy
yes it's hard to believe
The blade loss video show large motions at the inlet, but motion alone is not enough. You have to couple it with mass and rate of change.
The even more challenging forces are gust loads in extreme turbulence or aircraft upsets and these don't end up like what you see in the pictures. As long as the inlet remains a box structure designed to aircraft principals it will hold up through all types of loadings.
Is it so hard to believe that the massive forces shaking the cowling apart could to throw debris into the air-stream with sufficient force to dislodge a cabin window?
The blade loss video show large motions at the inlet, but motion alone is not enough. You have to couple it with mass and rate of change.
The even more challenging forces are gust loads in extreme turbulence or aircraft upsets and these don't end up like what you see in the pictures. As long as the inlet remains a box structure designed to aircraft principals it will hold up through all types of loadings.
Large Engine Uncontained Debris Analysis
DOT/FAA/AR-99/11
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/AR99-11.pdf
DOT/FAA/AR-99/11
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/AR99-11.pdf
my life just passed in front of me
PineappleFrenzy.
“Given the delay between the initial blade failure and the window failure, I think the evidence available supports the hypothesis that pieces of the cowl, or other secondary debris struck the window as the unbalanced engine wound down...”
Wound down sure. Absent a shaft brake or lock, what does windmilling do in such a circumstance?
“Given the delay between the initial blade failure and the window failure, I think the evidence available supports the hypothesis that pieces of the cowl, or other secondary debris struck the window as the unbalanced engine wound down...”
Wound down sure. Absent a shaft brake or lock, what does windmilling do in such a circumstance?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about all aero structures have critical vibration frequency and amplitude limits. Engine cowling is no different.
It is primarily designed for noise suppression, with strength considerations for ramp rash (nose cowl) and anti-flutter properties (clamshell & nose cowling). Modern engine cowlings are not considered primary protective structures from high energy engine parts. That's the purpose of the engine and fan cases.
While obvious, it is useful to recall that blade out test rigs are designed primarily to evaluate the disk, fan, and fan case strength and performance. The inlet bell is a multi-purpose structure that has no bearing on the blade test data, by design, outside of the purpose of containing the high energy fragments.
It is primarily designed for noise suppression, with strength considerations for ramp rash (nose cowl) and anti-flutter properties (clamshell & nose cowling). Modern engine cowlings are not considered primary protective structures from high energy engine parts. That's the purpose of the engine and fan cases.
While obvious, it is useful to recall that blade out test rigs are designed primarily to evaluate the disk, fan, and fan case strength and performance. The inlet bell is a multi-purpose structure that has no bearing on the blade test data, by design, outside of the purpose of containing the high energy fragments.
Wound down sure. Absent a shaft brake or lock, what does windmilling do in such a circumstance?
One story was that after a blade out event on a 747, the aircraft vibrations were so severe the crew had difficulty reading the flight deck gauges (one variation of the story - perhaps antidotal - was that there was a Boeing exec on the flight - after the flight he promptly asked engineering to go make sure the aircraft could handle that level of vibration..)
