JAL B772 at Okinawa - Dec 4th 2020
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAL B772 at Okinawa - Dec 4th 2020
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncontained failure? Any chance that cover became dislodged/open when the fan blade broke loose and simply departed the aircraft? It almost looks too clean to be an uncontained failure.
Yea, but better than the inlet coming off...
Refresh my memory - what engines does JAL have on their 777-200s?
I'm sure I knew at one time, but like the say, the memory is the second thing to go - I forget what was first
Refresh my memory - what engines does JAL have on their 777-200s?
I'm sure I knew at one time, but like the say, the memory is the second thing to go - I forget what was first
Dave Therhino
Indeed. "Uncontained" has a specific meaning in the context of engine failures. It doesn't include fan blade (or even turbine blade) parts ejected out of the front or back of the engine.
Sloppy reporting, or maybe lost in translation.
Indeed. "Uncontained" has a specific meaning in the context of engine failures. It doesn't include fan blade (or even turbine blade) parts ejected out of the front or back of the engine.
Sloppy reporting, or maybe lost in translation.
More like simplified reporting presuming details to follow days later.
Engines are certified contained without the coverings around them that are supplied by the installer. The first concern is whether high energy parts were ejected to threaten other aircraft systems.
It's up to the investigation to determine this and who fixes what as necessary
No surprise that soft stuff like kevlar belts surrounding a fan blade might deflect into any nacelle coverings. (same thing happens in body armour ouch!)
Engines are certified contained without the coverings around them that are supplied by the installer. The first concern is whether high energy parts were ejected to threaten other aircraft systems.
It's up to the investigation to determine this and who fixes what as necessary
No surprise that soft stuff like kevlar belts surrounding a fan blade might deflect into any nacelle coverings. (same thing happens in body armour ouch!)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK
The JTSB have just confirmed debris penetrated the engine casing (in other words, debris exited the engine radially, the very definition of an uncontained engine failure).
Sloppy reporting, eh?
The JTSB have just confirmed debris penetrated the engine casing (in other words, debris exited the engine radially, the very definition of an uncontained engine failure).
Sloppy reporting, eh?
I stand by my comment.
Clue: SWA1380 wasn't an "uncontained engine failure" either, despite the fact that some sources continue to report it as such.
Accident: Southwest B737 near Philadelphia on Apr 17th 2018, uncontained engine failure takes out passenger window
Clue: SWA1380 wasn't an "uncontained engine failure" either, despite the fact that some sources continue to report it as such.
Accident: Southwest B737 near Philadelphia on Apr 17th 2018, uncontained engine failure takes out passenger window
Austrian Simon
Can you provide the wording from the investigation? e.g were other aircraft systems penetrated by engine debris? Obviously the details about the engine-pod fan cowls are probably still being evaluated
Can you provide the wording from the investigation? e.g were other aircraft systems penetrated by engine debris? Obviously the details about the engine-pod fan cowls are probably still being evaluated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK
It is interesting to note, that you immediately jump to another occurrence in trying to evade this very clear statement by the JTSB, that they are investigating a "situation similiar to damage to an engine (when debris penetrates the case of the engine)". Such a tactics is an immediate admission that you are out of arguments and your statement/assumption was wrong.
In your yearlong crusade you overlook the obvious: WN-1380 was an uncontained failure, too, despite the fan containment ring not having been penetrated though having suffered a breach. Even though the NTSB was very careful in their wording and never described the event as contained or uncontained engine failure, their analysis makes clear, blade fragments exited radially before the containment ring at WN-1380 causing significant damage to the engine inlet, when they wrote:"One difference was that the fan blade fragments that went forward of the fan case and into the inlet during the accident FBO event had a different trajectory (a larger exit angle) and traveled beyond the containment shield. Another difference was that the inlet damage caused by these fan blade fragments was significantly greater than the amount of damage that was defined at the time of inlet certification."
A very similiar event to WN-1380 with almost identical damage to engine containment ring and inlet, WN-3472 of Aug 27th 2016, was clearly called an "uncontained engine failure" by the NTSB. In addition, FAA and EASA both called that event of 2016 an uncontained release of debris in their resulting airworthiness directives stating: "An occurrence was reported of fan blade failure on a CFM56-7B engine. The released fan blade was initially contained by the engine case, but there was subsequent uncontained forward release of debris and separation of the inlet cowl."
In the EAD 2018-09-51 following the 2018 engine failure the FAA wrote 3 days after the accident:
"This emergency AD was prompted by a recent event in which a Boeing Model 737-700 airplane powered by CFM56-7B model engines experienced an engine failure due to a fractured fan blade, resulting in the engine inlet cowl disintegrating. Debris penetrated the fuselage causing a loss of pressurization and prompting an emergency descent. Although the airplane landed safely, there was one passenger fatality. Fan blade failure due to cracking, if not addressed, could result in an engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD), uncontained release of debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible airplane decompression."
It is interesting to note, that you immediately jump to another occurrence in trying to evade this very clear statement by the JTSB, that they are investigating a "situation similiar to damage to an engine (when debris penetrates the case of the engine)". Such a tactics is an immediate admission that you are out of arguments and your statement/assumption was wrong.
In your yearlong crusade you overlook the obvious: WN-1380 was an uncontained failure, too, despite the fan containment ring not having been penetrated though having suffered a breach. Even though the NTSB was very careful in their wording and never described the event as contained or uncontained engine failure, their analysis makes clear, blade fragments exited radially before the containment ring at WN-1380 causing significant damage to the engine inlet, when they wrote:"One difference was that the fan blade fragments that went forward of the fan case and into the inlet during the accident FBO event had a different trajectory (a larger exit angle) and traveled beyond the containment shield. Another difference was that the inlet damage caused by these fan blade fragments was significantly greater than the amount of damage that was defined at the time of inlet certification."
A very similiar event to WN-1380 with almost identical damage to engine containment ring and inlet, WN-3472 of Aug 27th 2016, was clearly called an "uncontained engine failure" by the NTSB. In addition, FAA and EASA both called that event of 2016 an uncontained release of debris in their resulting airworthiness directives stating: "An occurrence was reported of fan blade failure on a CFM56-7B engine. The released fan blade was initially contained by the engine case, but there was subsequent uncontained forward release of debris and separation of the inlet cowl."
In the EAD 2018-09-51 following the 2018 engine failure the FAA wrote 3 days after the accident:
"This emergency AD was prompted by a recent event in which a Boeing Model 737-700 airplane powered by CFM56-7B model engines experienced an engine failure due to a fractured fan blade, resulting in the engine inlet cowl disintegrating. Debris penetrated the fuselage causing a loss of pressurization and prompting an emergency descent. Although the airplane landed safely, there was one passenger fatality. Fan blade failure due to cracking, if not addressed, could result in an engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD), uncontained release of debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible airplane decompression."
Last edited by Austrian Simon; 8th Dec 2020 at 16:25.
Austrian Simon
I await your answer to my request above.
As always the importance of an investigation is the recommendations for corrective actions whether they be at the design level, maintenance, training. or operation levels. Semantics is only important when searching for codified regulatory material.
I await your answer to my request above.
As always the importance of an investigation is the recommendations for corrective actions whether they be at the design level, maintenance, training. or operation levels. Semantics is only important when searching for codified regulatory material.
Austrian Simon
On the contrary, simply pointing out that it wouldn't be the first time you have mis-categorised an engine failure as "uncontained".
You are a great journalist, Simon, when it comes to reporting facts, so I'd suggest that you content yourself with that, until such time as you can report on the findings of the investigation.
If you're determined to subject the incident to "analysis" in the meantime, you might want to reflect on the fact that the media coverage shows the engine from pretty well every angle.
If a blade, or part of one, was ejected radially, it appears to have managed to do so without making any discernable hole in the nacelle. The statement that you quote from the JTSB doesn't support your assertion that it was an uncontained failure.
On the contrary, simply pointing out that it wouldn't be the first time you have mis-categorised an engine failure as "uncontained".
You are a great journalist, Simon, when it comes to reporting facts, so I'd suggest that you content yourself with that, until such time as you can report on the findings of the investigation.
If you're determined to subject the incident to "analysis" in the meantime, you might want to reflect on the fact that the media coverage shows the engine from pretty well every angle.
If a blade, or part of one, was ejected radially, it appears to have managed to do so without making any discernable hole in the nacelle. The statement that you quote from the JTSB doesn't support your assertion that it was an uncontained failure.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
I actually included that information in my earlier post (and in the article): The JTSB reported they investigate a "situation similiar to damage to an engine (when debris penetrates the case of the engine)". They did not specify any more details yet, it is just the notification of investigation being opened.
I actually included that information in my earlier post (and in the article): The JTSB reported they investigate a "situation similiar to damage to an engine (when debris penetrates the case of the engine)". They did not specify any more details yet, it is just the notification of investigation being opened.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recent 777 event, Southwest 1380, and Southwest 3472 all were not uncontained failures as defined by industry and the regulatory authorities. The initial NTSB press releases for 3472 incorrectly used the term "uncontained" (as does Wikipedia), but if you read the subsequent NTSB accident report for 1380 in the section on previous incidents they state the fan blade in the 3472 event did not breach the containment ring or the debris shield that was part of the inlet inner wall structure, and they do not use the term "uncontained" in that later summary of the 3472 event.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR1903.pdf
(see page 60)
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR1903.pdf
(see page 60)
"Contained means that no fragments are released through the engine structure, but fragments may be ejected out the engine air inlet or exhaust."
(note the specific reference to blades)
Recommended reading for all.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, WN-3472 (Aug 24th 2016) final report states the engine failure was uncontained (looks like this final report has escaped my attention so far) :
http://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/ap...port/93897/pdf
Quote: "Defining Event: Uncontained engine failure"
This is not being used for WN-1380 (Apr 17th 2018), the NTSB does not state in that final report, whether the engine failure was contained or uncontained at all.
However the investigation's powerplant group spent a whole lot of time and many, many, many pages in their report about those definitions/interpretations in the FAA regulations and advisory circulars:
FAR Section 33.19:
FAR Section 33.19 requires the engine manufacturer (CFM in this case) “…design of the compressor and turbine rotor cases must provide for the containment of damage from rotor blade failure.’’ Although not stated specifically, historically this has been interpreted that engine debris cannot penetrate and pass radially through any of the engine cases, but debris can exit axially out the front or back of the engine. FAR Section 33.19 also addresses engine debris exiting out the front and back of the engine by requiring that “… Energy levels and trajectories of fragments resulting from rotor blade failure that lie outside the compressor and turbine rotor cases must be defined.”
AC 33-5:
According to AC 33-5 ‘contained’ was defined to mean “that no fragments are released through the engine structure, but fragments may be ejected out of the engine air inlet or exhaust” and defined ‘engine structure’ to mean “the engine structure surrounding the main rotors and extending from the forward-most case flange through the rear most flange, as defined by the type design”.
AC 20-128:
For the purposes of airplane evaluations in accordance with this AC, uncontained failure of a turbine engine is any failure which results in the escape of rotor fragments from the engine or APU that could result in a hazard. Rotor failures which are of a concern are those where released fragments have sufficient energy to create a hazard to the airplane.
I am still investigating and engaged in a background research over this discussion to clarify the real definition of contained and uncontained on regulatory level (seeing those three different conflicting interpretations). The question now is: why is the one occurrence rated uncontained, and the other very similair event not categorized in that respect?
Applying the historical definition based on FAR 33.19 the engine failure of WN-1380 needs to be categorized as uncontained just like WN-3472. Applying AC 20-128 or AC 33-5 neither event is uncontained.
http://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/ap...port/93897/pdf
Quote: "Defining Event: Uncontained engine failure"
This is not being used for WN-1380 (Apr 17th 2018), the NTSB does not state in that final report, whether the engine failure was contained or uncontained at all.
However the investigation's powerplant group spent a whole lot of time and many, many, many pages in their report about those definitions/interpretations in the FAA regulations and advisory circulars:
FAR Section 33.19:
FAR Section 33.19 requires the engine manufacturer (CFM in this case) “…design of the compressor and turbine rotor cases must provide for the containment of damage from rotor blade failure.’’ Although not stated specifically, historically this has been interpreted that engine debris cannot penetrate and pass radially through any of the engine cases, but debris can exit axially out the front or back of the engine. FAR Section 33.19 also addresses engine debris exiting out the front and back of the engine by requiring that “… Energy levels and trajectories of fragments resulting from rotor blade failure that lie outside the compressor and turbine rotor cases must be defined.”
AC 33-5:
According to AC 33-5 ‘contained’ was defined to mean “that no fragments are released through the engine structure, but fragments may be ejected out of the engine air inlet or exhaust” and defined ‘engine structure’ to mean “the engine structure surrounding the main rotors and extending from the forward-most case flange through the rear most flange, as defined by the type design”.
AC 20-128:
For the purposes of airplane evaluations in accordance with this AC, uncontained failure of a turbine engine is any failure which results in the escape of rotor fragments from the engine or APU that could result in a hazard. Rotor failures which are of a concern are those where released fragments have sufficient energy to create a hazard to the airplane.
I am still investigating and engaged in a background research over this discussion to clarify the real definition of contained and uncontained on regulatory level (seeing those three different conflicting interpretations). The question now is: why is the one occurrence rated uncontained, and the other very similair event not categorized in that respect?
Applying the historical definition based on FAR 33.19 the engine failure of WN-1380 needs to be categorized as uncontained just like WN-3472. Applying AC 20-128 or AC 33-5 neither event is uncontained.
Although not stated specifically, historically this has been interpreted that engine debris cannot penetrate and pass radially through any of the engine cases, but debris can exit axially out the front or back of the engine.
Bits of engine exiting forward or backward don't. They fall behind the aircraft in flight.
That's why the distinction is important.