# Southwest Airlines Uncontained Engine Failure, One Fatality (4/17/18)



## PRR 60

WN 1380, LGA-DAL: engine failed at 32,500 feet with shrapnel penetrating the aircraft resulting in explosive decompression. The flight diverted and made an emergency landing at PHL. A woman sitting at a blown out window died of injuries resulting from the decompression.

Story, video and photos at 6ABC Philadelphia.

Discussion at Airliners.net


----------



## Ryan

That explains the Southwest jet we saw on TV while standing in line to board our flight. Guy next to me commented that it was never good to see one on the news like that, but there wasn't anything on the screen to explain what happened.

Bet that was a pretty crazy ride.


----------



## Dakota 400

I think this is a second Southwest Airlines event in very recent days. I saw online a very scary landing, not sure where, of a Southwest jet during a severe storm. The passengers thought they were going to crash.

I'm very sorry to learn of the passing of the woman who was sitting next to that blown out window. Reports on Fox News this afternoon said that she was almost sucked out of the plane. May she rest in peace!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Barring some sort of destructive external catalyst (on-ground impact, midair collision) uncontained engine failures were supposedly relegated to the "nearly impossible" design scope.


----------



## blueman271

Devil's Advocate said:


> Barring some sort of destructive external catalyst (on-ground impact, midair collision) uncontained engine failures were supposedly relegated to the "nearly impossible" design scope.


Where has this been claimed? This exact same thing happened to Southwest a few years ago, just without the loss of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472

Maybe the engine manufacturers are saying this type of engine failure isn’t possible on newer engines but I highly doubt any of them would make this claim about 20 year old engines.


----------



## CAMISSY55

While finishing up my weekly lunch at my favorite restaurant and perusing AU forums, I clicked on the link provided by PRR 60’s in this thread about the Southwest Airlines emergency landing in Philadelphia. Having only heard the first headlines on television before I left home to run errands and then have lunch, I was curious to find out what had happened.

And boy howdy! I was totally unprepared for what followed. At airliners.net (a previously unknown message board for me) I began reading the posts and viewing the photos from the beginning of the thread. Sometimes I will jump to the last page of posts rather than read everything, unfortunately I didn’t in this case. I was captivated reading the nearly live updating of information, maybe because I don’t use Twitter or Facebook or similar sites, or the mood I was in, or..... who knows?! But, I just kept reading.

Reports varied, but it seemed horrifically apparent that a woman seated in the window seat near the back of one of the wings had been sucked partially (or worse by some accounts) through or into the window that was blown out by “uncontained engine failure” debris. The posts (and pictures) addressed varying reactions of the crew and passengers, the improper use of the O2 masks, and seemingly knowledgeable comments about how and why a drastic loss of cabin pressure could cause someone, despite having their seatbelt fastened securely, to be basically turned into “skin, water and bones.” And that they could very well be SUCKED out such a small window. Wow! How horrifying for the surrounding passengers, including some that reportedly physically pulled her back from the abyss.

For some reason (I know not why), this affected me intensely and made me happy that I had finished eating. Perhaps it was because I get my news from the “MSM” who don’t report in such graphic detail and who don’t generally report details without official confirmation. At any rate, I almost embarrassingly continued reading. About two or three pages in, a post read that the NTSB announced that the woman had died. It hit me uncharacteristically hard. It seemed surreal and so, so tragic.

The US hasn’t experienced a commercial airline fatality in nearly a decade. When I clicked on the link to find out what happened earlier today, I thought that it might possibly involve a crash type emergency landing and maybe injuries. But, someone dying because they were nearly sucked out a window.... never!

p.s. I grew up in an era where commercial aircraft crashes, while not common, did occasionally happen with catastrophic results. I especially remember the PSA crash over a San Diego neighborhood in the late 70s, as it hit close to home and near Lindberg Field, the airport I used frequently.

I am sure there have been maybe multiple incidents like this decades ago. I seem to remember an airliner heading to (or from?) Hawaii many years ago when a door blew out and at least one (maybe more?) person was “sucked” out before pressure was stabilized. But, this was before social media and instant video, pictures and live posting was available. Perhaps that is what makes it more horrific...


----------



## GBNorman

Even if I don't fly Southwest (last did so during '08), I have always been impressed by their exemplary safety record.

Considering how many cycles their aircraft are subject to, their maintenance standards have also been exemplary.

But now WN has had a passenger fatality, and with it goes the record of no fatalities on US soil since '13 - and since '09, none on a US flagged carrier.


----------



## Trogdor

blueman271 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barring some sort of destructive external catalyst (on-ground impact, midair collision) uncontained engine failures were supposedly relegated to the "nearly impossible" design scope.
> 
> 
> 
> Where has this been claimed? This exact same thing happened to Southwest a few years ago, just without the loss of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472
> 
> Maybe the engine manufacturers are saying this type of engine failure isn’t possible on newer engines but I highly doubt any of them would make this claim about 20 year old engines.
Click to expand...

Nearly impossible is not the same as entirely impossible.

Engines are supposed to be able to contain a fan blade failure. If an entire disc goes, there is no material (at least nothing light enough to allow a plane to still fly) that can contain it.

Even if the plane was 20 years old, there’s no guarantee the engine was. In this specific case, I’m not sure, but most planes have engine changes every few years, and the engines to through a separate maintenance/refurb program, so a 20-year-old plane could have a brand new engine, and a five-year-old plane could have a 20-year-old engine.

Regardless, incidents like this have even happened with newer engines. Qantas had a failure with a Rolls Royce engine on a brand-new A380 that actually damaged some control systems. The plane was out of service for a year or two after that. Air France had something similar to this happen with one of their A380s a few months ago (I think AF uses the GE/PW engine on the A380, but am not 100% sure of that).

These can be caused by premature corrosion, bad maintenance, or manufacturing flaws, and depending on what the specific cause is, can be impossible to detect. The best any manufacturer could do is say that such an event is extremely unlikely (on the order of one in several million or so), but nobody could responsibly say that such a failure is impossible.


----------



## PerRock

Trogdor said:


> blueman271 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barring some sort of destructive external catalyst (on-ground impact, midair collision) uncontained engine failures were supposedly relegated to the "nearly impossible" design scope.
> 
> 
> 
> Where has this been claimed? This exact same thing happened to Southwest a few years ago, just without the loss of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472
> 
> Maybe the engine manufacturers are saying this type of engine failure isn’t possible on newer engines but I highly doubt any of them would make this claim about 20 year old engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nearly impossible is not the same as entirely impossible.
> 
> Engines are supposed to be able to contain a fan blade failure. If an entire disc goes, there is no material (at least nothing light enough to allow a plane to still fly) that can contain it.
> 
> Even if the plane was 20 years old, there’s no guarantee the engine was. In this specific case, I’m not sure, but most planes have engine changes every few years, and the engines to through a separate maintenance/refurb program, so a 20-year-old plane could have a brand new engine, and a five-year-old plane could have a 20-year-old engine.
> 
> Regardless, incidents like this have even happened with newer engines. Qantas had a failure with a Rolls Royce engine on a brand-new A380 that actually damaged some control systems. The plane was out of service for a year or two after that. Air France had something similar to this happen with one of their A380s a few months ago (I think AF uses the GE/PW engine on the A380, but am not 100% sure of that).
> 
> These can be caused by premature corrosion, bad maintenance, or manufacturing flaws, and depending on what the specific cause is, can be impossible to detect. The best any manufacturer could do is say that such an event is extremely unlikely (on the order of one in several million or so), but nobody could responsibly say that such a failure is impossible.
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact age, but in one picture I saw from the interior of the plane, the passenger safety card could be seen; which read "[blocked]7-800" NW only flies 737, making is a 737-800... a fairly new plane.

peter


----------



## PRR 60

The ship was N772SW: a B737-700 delivered in July, 2000. The engines were (2) CFM56-7. CFM is a joint venture of Safran (France) and General Electric.


----------



## Trogdor

PerRock said:


> I don't know the exact age, but in one picture I saw from the interior of the plane, the passenger safety card could be seen; which read "[blocked]7-800" NW only flies 737, making is a 737-800... a fairly new plane.
> 
> 
> peter



Southwest uses the same safety card for all of their planes (the card says 737-700/-800/MAX8).

Honestly, I don't know how they're allowed to do that, since they have different exit configurations (the -700 has one overwing exit pair, the -800/MAX 8 have two).

Back when they had classics and NGs, they used the same safety card even though the overwing exit operation is different on the two types. I would think that the safety card ought to be specific to the plane (meaning not having it list configurations or exit operations that don't apply to that plane), but I guess the FAA signed off on allowing them to do it that way.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

CAMISSY55 said:


> While finishing up my weekly lunch at my favorite restaurant and perusing AU forums, I clicked on the link provided by PRR 60s in this thread about the Southwest Airlines emergency landing in Philadelphia. Having only heard the first headlines on television before I left home to run errands and then have lunch, I was curious to find out what had happened.
> 
> And boy howdy! I was totally unprepared for what followed. At airliners.net (a previously unknown message board for me) I began reading the posts and viewing the photos from the beginning of the thread. Sometimes I will jump to the last page of posts rather than read everything, unfortunately I didnt in this case. I was captivated reading the nearly live updating of information, maybe because I dont use Twitter or Facebook or similar sites, or the mood I was in, or..... who knows?! But, I just kept reading.
> 
> Reports varied, but it seemed horrifically apparent that a woman seated in the window seat near the back of one of the wings had been sucked partially (or worse by some accounts) through or into the window that was blown out by uncontained engine failure debris. The posts (and pictures) addressed varying reactions of the crew and passengers, the improper use of the O2 masks, and seemingly knowledgeable comments about how and why a drastic loss of cabin pressure could cause someone, despite having their seatbelt fastened securely, to be basically turned into skin, water and bones. And that they could very well be SUCKED out such a small window. Wow! How horrifying for the surrounding passengers, including some that reportedly physically pulled her back from the abyss.
> 
> For some reason (I know not why), this affected me intensely and made me happy that I had finished eating. Perhaps it was because I get my news from the MSM who dont report in such graphic detail and who dont generally report details without official confirmation. At any rate, I almost embarrassingly continued reading. About two or three pages in, a post read that the NTSB announced that the woman had died. It hit me uncharacteristically hard. It seemed surreal and so, so tragic.
> 
> The US hasnt experienced a commercial airline fatality in nearly a decade. When I clicked on the link to find out what happened earlier today, I thought that it might possibly involve a crash type emergency landing and maybe injuries. But, someone dying because they were nearly sucked out a window.... never!
> 
> p.s. I grew up in an era where commercial aircraft crashes, while not common, did occasionally happen with catastrophic results. I especially remember the PSA crash over a San Diego neighborhood in the late 70s, as it hit close to home and near Lindberg Field, the airport I used frequently.
> 
> I am sure there have been maybe multiple incidents like this decades ago. I seem to remember an airliner heading to (or from?) Hawaii many years ago when a door blew out and at least one (maybe more?) person was sucked out before pressure was stabilized. But, this was before social media and instant video, pictures and live posting was available. Perhaps that is what makes it more horrific...


Aloha Airlines Flight 243 in 1988 was an accident in Hawaii that involved a large section of the roof coming off completely. One employee was sucked out of the plane; everybody else survived.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Dakota 400 said:


> I think this is a second Southwest Airlines event in very recent days. I saw online a very scary landing, not sure where, of a Southwest jet during a severe storm. The passengers thought they were going to crash.
> 
> I'm very sorry to learn of the passing of the woman who was sitting next to that blown out window. Reports on Fox News this afternoon said that she was almost sucked out of the plane. May she rest in peace!


Yes, there was another incident during a landing at MSY (New Orleans) which failed and was aborted. The aircraft diverted.



CAMISSY55 said:


> While finishing up my weekly lunch at my favorite restaurant and perusing AU forums, I clicked on the link provided by PRR 60’s in this thread about the Southwest Airlines emergency landing in Philadelphia. Having only heard the first headlines on television before I left home to run errands and then have lunch, I was curious to find out what had happened.
> 
> And boy howdy! I was totally unprepared for what followed. At airliners.net (a previously unknown message board for me) I began reading the posts and viewing the photos from the beginning of the thread. Sometimes I will jump to the last page of posts rather than read everything, unfortunately I didn’t in this case. I was captivated reading the nearly live updating of information, maybe because I don’t use Twitter or Facebook or similar sites, or the mood I was in, or..... who knows?! But, I just kept reading.
> 
> Reports varied, but it seemed horrifically apparent that a woman seated in the window seat near the back of one of the wings had been sucked partially (or worse by some accounts) through or into the window that was blown out by “uncontained engine failure” debris. The posts (and pictures) addressed varying reactions of the crew and passengers, the improper use of the O2 masks, and seemingly knowledgeable comments about how and why a drastic loss of cabin pressure could cause someone, despite having their seatbelt fastened securely, to be basically turned into “skin, water and bones.” And that they could very well be SUCKED out such a small window. Wow! How horrifying for the surrounding passengers, including some that reportedly physically pulled her back from the abyss.
> 
> For some reason (I know not why), this affected me intensely and made me happy that I had finished eating. Perhaps it was because I get my news from the “MSM” who don’t report in such graphic detail and who don’t generally report details without official confirmation. At any rate, I almost embarrassingly continued reading. About two or three pages in, a post read that the NTSB announced that the woman had died. It hit me uncharacteristically hard. It seemed surreal and so, so tragic.
> 
> The US hasn’t experienced a commercial airline fatality in nearly a decade. When I clicked on the link to find out what happened earlier today, I thought that it might possibly involve a crash type emergency landing and maybe injuries. But, someone dying because they were nearly sucked out a window.... never!
> 
> p.s. I grew up in an era where commercial aircraft crashes, while not common, did occasionally happen with catastrophic results. I especially remember the PSA crash over a San Diego neighborhood in the late 70s, as it hit close to home and near Lindberg Field, the airport I used frequently.
> 
> I am sure there have been maybe multiple incidents like this decades ago. I seem to remember an airliner heading to (or from?) Hawaii many years ago when a door blew out and at least one (maybe more?) person was “sucked” out before pressure was stabilized. But, this was before social media and instant video, pictures and live posting was available. Perhaps that is what makes it more horrific...


Airliners is perhaps the foremost airline fan site characterized by usual significant bickering between Airbus and Boeing fans and bickering between fans of various airlines. However, some of the members are knowledgeable pilots and engineers.

Hopefully NTSB figures it out soon. Too many CFM56 engines around to risk.


----------



## PRR 60

Here's an article from the Aviation Herald with links to NTSB video and photos, plus comments from (mostly) informed posters.

A couple of interesting points:


A portion of the failed cowling was recovered on the ground about 70 miles northwest of Philadelphia.
Fear of control damage resulted in the plane landing at Flap 5 (the angle of flap decent to slow the plane and increase lift). Typically, a 737 lands at Flap 30 or 40. In English this means the plane touched down at a much higher speed than normal.
The Captain was Tammie Jo Shults, a former Navy F18 fighter pilot (Ryan swells with pride!). 
Very preliminary investigation by the NTSB found a missing fan blade, with the failure appearing to be metal fatigue.


----------



## caravanman

One of the things that stands out for me, with this and the Hudson River landing, is that both the commercial pilots had former military flying history. It would be nice to feel that all pilots would be as calm and clear thinking under such pressure, but these folk seem to bring a little extra to the cockpit.

Ed.


----------



## cpotisch

The -56 engines used on the more recent 737s have an exemplary safety record and this accident is indeed a shocker in the aviation world. Apparently a fan blade in the left engine had partially detached due to metal fatigue. It then got sucked into the fan and the engine exploded. Sounds fun.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

blueman271 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barring some sort of destructive external catalyst (on-ground impact, midair collision) uncontained engine failures were supposedly relegated to the "nearly impossible" design scope.
> 
> 
> 
> Where has this been claimed? This exact same thing happened to Southwest a few years ago, just without the loss of life. Maybe the engine manufacturers are saying this type of engine failure isn’t possible on newer engines but I highly doubt any of them would make this claim about 20 year old engines.
Click to expand...

The first time I remember hearing this claim was in the 772 GE90 era. That is not to say that it is a hard and fast rule, and it's obvious that it does in fact happen, but in theory commercial turbofan engines should be more likely to fall off the wing than explode into the fuselage.



GBNorman said:


> Even if I don't fly Southwest (last did so during '08), I have always been impressed by their exemplary safety record. Considering how many cycles their aircraft are subject to, their maintenance standards have also been exemplary.


A few years ago Southwest was substantially fined for illegally failing to resolve and report excessively deferred maintenance. If I remember correctly the delays were so severe and widespread that Southwest suffered some of the highest maintenance and reporting fines ever levied at that time.



Trogdor said:


> Honestly, I don't know how they're allowed to [include multiple distinct aircraft on a single safety card] since they have different exit configurations...I guess the FAA signed off on allowing them to do it that way.


I believe the approval is predicated on the staff announcing the specific series at the beginning of each flight. My main problem with airline flight safety materials is that they never go beyond the the most basic information. Even after five hundred flights you're no more prepared for an actual crash than you were after the first five.



brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> CAMISSY55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember an airliner heading to (or from?) Hawaii many years ago when a door blew out and at least one (maybe more?) person was sucked out before pressure was stabilized. But, this was before social media and instant video, pictures and live posting was available. Perhaps that is what makes it more horrific...
> 
> 
> 
> Aloha Airlines Flight 243 in 1988 was an accident in Hawaii that involved a large section of the roof coming off completely. One employee was sucked out of the plane; everybody else survived.
Click to expand...

There was also UA811...


----------



## Bob Dylan

I agree with Chris that the so called pre-flight Safety briefing is a charade that absolutely no-one pays attention too, and that the safety cards ard a sad joke too!


----------



## AlamoWye

I've always wished that the airlines would provide some extra training and certification for frequent passengers, similar to CPR training, that would allow them to sit in the emergency exit areas. If a few more passengers were aware of what needed to be done in emergencies and had actually practiced it, I'm sure it could save lives. I mean it seems normal to throw the emergency exit out, but I think I've heard sometime you are suppose to bring it in. And the wing exit passenger is also supposed to assess whether it is actually safe to exit onto the wing. A lot of stuff to try to remember when this last episode shows that people don't even know how to put on their oxygen mask correctly.


----------



## cpotisch

AlamoWye said:


> I've always wished that the airlines would provide some extra training and certification for frequent passengers, similar to CPR training, that would allow them to sit in the emergency exit areas. If a few more passengers were aware of what needed to be done in emergencies and had actually practiced it, I'm sure it could save lives. I mean it seems normal to throw the emergency exit out, but I think I've heard sometime you are suppose to bring it in. And the wing exit passenger is also supposed to assess whether it is actually safe to exit onto the wing. A lot of stuff to try to remember when this last episode shows that people don't even know how to put on their oxygen mask correctly.


I don't see how it would make much sense to give training to frequent passengers. Anyone sitting in an exit row already knows the main responsibilities of doing so. And it's not their responsibility to perform CPR. That's up to the crew.


----------



## Ryan

More training is almost always better than less.

Then again, I’m one of those crazy people that maintains a CPR cert even though I have no job or other requirements to do so.

I’d gladly take part in airline-specific training if it were offered. It can’t hurt to be more prepared.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ryan said:


> More training is almost always better than less.
> 
> Then again, Im one of those crazy people that maintains a CPR cert even though I have no job or other requirements to do so.
> 
> Id gladly take part in airline-specific training if it were offered. It cant hurt to be more prepared.


This!


----------



## B757Guy

caravanman said:


> One of the things that stands out for me, with this and the Hudson River landing, is that both the commercial pilots had former military flying history. It would be nice to feel that all pilots would be as calm and clear thinking under such pressure, but these folk seem to bring a little extra to the cockpit.
> 
> Ed.


While I am ex-military, (Air Force F-111/F-15) and appreciate the comment, I've flown with many pilots who did not come up through the military, and they are excellent pilots, whose skills during an emergency like this, I would stack up against any former military pilot. Throughout my civilian career, I have encountered maybe 2 pilots who had no business being in a cockpit, and they are long since gone now...


----------



## trainman74

Bob Dylan said:


> I agree with Chris that the so called pre-flight Safety briefing is a charade that absolutely no-one pays attention too, and that the safety cards ard a sad joke too!


I couldn't help wondering whether the safety briefing on this flight had been done in a straightforward manner, or if it had been done by one of the Southwest flight attendants who peppers it liberally with jokes.


----------



## cpotisch

It's been especially frustrating to have the kid-oriented, musical, safety videos. Virgin America at one point had a rapped/sung video that lasted for five minutes but because of how many times they repeated the lines. I don't want to listen to an entire song where every line is repeated ten times, just in the hopes that it sounds catchy.


----------



## saxman

Don't forget that it took BOTH pilots to get the aircraft on the ground safely. In normal operations the pilot monitoring (PM) is the one talking on the radios while the pilot flying (PF) is the one operating the controls. Now in an emergency situation like this, it takes some serious coordination on who is doing what. Now each airline is slightly different with their SOP's. At my airline, most emergencies or abnormalities, the controls and radios are first handed to the first officer (FO), while the captain manages the situation by first getting in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) and takes care of the problem. Then they have to coordinate with the flight attendants about the situation of diverting, whether or not there are hurt people, then plan with ATC about diverting. The one emergency where it is the captain doing the flying is actually the emergency decent after a depressurization, in which the captain will take control of the aircraft and ask the FO to declare an emergency with ATC and then reads off the checklist for doing said decent and tells the captain exactly what do to. At a safe altitude, then the FO can take the controls while the captain manages the situation and makes sure everyone is coordinated and all final checklists are complete. Now Southwest might have totally different procedures so we won't know who was flying until the NTSB report is out. It could have very well been the FO that flew the entire time. Or perhaps he was flying while she was managing the last minute checklists and maybe they transferred controls for the landing. Who knows yet? The fact is that it's a team effort.

What's amazing is that this flight had not one but TWO threats at first. They had engine fire indication immediately followed by a rapid decompression. Two immediate threats that have to be dealt with in a certain order. The decompression was obviously the more serious threat at the time because you can't fight a engine fire when you're unconscious. I'm curious to see the transcripts of their thought process when this first happened. Luckily the engine was not on fire and it was just an indication when the thing nearly disintegrated. Once at safe altitude, they still had to secure the dead engine, run the checklists for single engine approaches as they had wing damage. And make sure everything was okay in the cabin. Things weren't so they made sure medics were on hand as well.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks for the insight from the Cockpit Chris!


----------



## railiner

I will be very interested in the NTSB findings on this event...what their recommendations will be in prevention of another occurrence....

Reinforcing the engine shroud with some kind of light weight Kevlar belt, perhaps?

Reducing the time between inspections, or other engine maintenance?

Should be interesting...


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> I will be very interested in the NTSB findings on this event...what their recommendations will be in prevention of another occurrence....
> 
> *Reinforcing the engine shroud with some kind of light weight Kevlar belt, perhaps? *
> 
> Reducing the time between inspections, or other engine maintenance?
> 
> Should be interesting...


I imagine that a Kevlar shroud won't do much to contain an exploding jet engine that puts out 34,000 pounds of thrust. Remember that we're talking about 40 or so massive fan blades firing in all directions at 5200+ rpm. I doubt Kevlar can do much about that...


----------



## jis

FAA has already added additional ultrasonic test requirements for operating the CFM engines in question.

Meanwhile there is the continuing saga of the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 Engines and their blade corrosion problems leading to inflight shutdowns....

http://www.godsavethepoints.com/2018/04/15/problems-mount-rolls-royce-boeing-787-dreamliner-engines/

Apparently even Trent 900 engines on some A380s are affected, but being a 4 engine plane the A380s are not affected by the drastic ETOPS rating reductions.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> Apparently even Trent 900 engines on some A380s are affected, but being a 4 engine plane the A380s are not affected by the drastic ETOPS rating reductions.


ETOPS isn't so drastic anymore. The 787 has an ETOPS rating of 330 minutes. That means that it can safely fly with one engine working for five and a half hours. So ETOPS is not really the limiting factor here.


----------



## Dakota 400

Now, today, another Southwest 737 had an incident.

Too many flights between thorough inspections for their planes?

Southwest pulled out of my home airport. Good. I wouldn't even consider flying them now if they were a local option.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> Now, today, another Southwest 737 had an incident.
> 
> Too many flights between thorough inspections for their planes?
> 
> Southwest pulled out of my home airport. Good. I wouldn't even consider flying them now if they were a local option.


A window cracked on the SW flight! They still have the BEST Safety Record of all the Airlines, which are THE SAFEST Way to Travel!


----------



## cpotisch

https://nypost.com/2018/05/02/southwest-airlines-flight-makes-emergency-landing-due-to-broken-window/

SWA, get your act together!


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently even Trent 900 engines on some A380s are affected, but being a 4 engine plane the A380s are not affected by the drastic ETOPS rating reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> ETOPS isn't so drastic anymore. The 787 has an ETOPS rating of 330 minutes. That means that it can safely fly with one engine working for five and a half hours. So ETOPS is not really the limiting factor here.
Click to expand...

The ETOPS certification for RR Trent 787 have been temporarily cut down to 180 in case you have not been paying attention [emoji57]. This has led to withdrawal of 787s from some routes and substitution by other types.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> Now, today, another Southwest 737 had an incident. Too many flights between thorough inspections for their planes? Southwest pulled out of my home airport. Good. I wouldn't even consider flying them now if they were a local option.


Southwest operates under the same maintenance and safety standards as any other major US airline. If the system allows unsafe operation by one carrier it allows unsafe operation by all carriers.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently even Trent 900 engines on some A380s are affected, but being a 4 engine plane the A380s are not affected by the drastic ETOPS rating reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> ETOPS isn't so drastic anymore. The 787 has an ETOPS rating of 330 minutes. That means that it can safely fly with one engine working for five and a half hours. So ETOPS is not really the limiting factor here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ETOPS certification for RR Trent 787 have been temporarily cut down to 180 in case you have not been paying attention [emoji57]. This has led to withdrawal of 787s from some routes and substitution by other types.
Click to expand...

I thought it was actually reduced to 140 minutes, not even 180.


----------



## jis

Trog, you’re correct. 140.


----------



## cpotisch

Yikes. That's not good at all.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Yikes. That's not good at all.


That's OK. It'll eventually get fixed. Remember, the 787 fleet was entirely grounded for a while after the battery affair.


----------



## railiner

I was reading a report yesterday...forgot just where...that explained the stress the multi-layered cabin windows sustain with each pressurization cycle...

I wonder if there was something that could be designed that would take the tension off the plastic or glass (not sure what each layer is), and have some type of mechanical device absorb the expansion and retraction?

Apparently, there may have been a tiny unseen flaw that suddenly cracked under the tension in this case, but thankfully it held long enough for the cabin to not lose pressure...

I've seen my car windshield crack in the winter, when my hot defroster hit a tiny chip in the cold glass...


----------



## PVD

Curious as to how the orders have split between the GEnX and the RR on the 787....


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> Curious as to how the orders have split between the GEnX and the RR on the 787....


I have an impression that GEnX had a significant lead based on the last definitive article on that in AvLeak. But that was a couple years back. I don't know for sure what the current situation is.


----------



## cpotisch

Just did a quick look around, and apparently most 787s have RR engines. But a bad sign is that the largest 787 operator in the world (ANA), is refitting 50 planes with GEnX engines. Does not seem to bode well for Rolls if the largest operator is giving up on them altogether...


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Just did a quick look around, and apparently most 787s have RR engines. But a bad sign is that the largest 787 operator in the world (ANA), is refitting 50 planes with GEnX engines. Does not seem to bode well for Rolls if the largest operator is giving up on them altogether...


I thought they were about 50/50. Can you share where you looked around to that conclusion.


----------



## PVD

Did some scrounging for data, and the best I can come up with is about 75%-25% GE over RR


----------



## PVD

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-13/dreamliners-longest-trips-face-curbs-on-rolls-royce-engine-woes

It seems that most of the bigger users are siding with the GE

also glanced at production list data on planespotters...

with ANA replacing their RR with GE, that's 100 more GE (plus spares) for their 50 planes.


----------



## cpotisch

PVD said:


> Did some scrounging for data, and the best I can come up with is about 75%-25% GE over RR


I had thought GEs were used more as well, but saw a couple pages yesterday that said the Trents were more common. But looking around now, I can't seem to find those articles, so IDK.


----------



## Trogdor

Where has ANA announced that they are switching engines to GE? Changing engine types on an already-built jet is a costly and extensive process, and thus is rarely ever done.

While originally Boeing wanted to design the 787 so that swapping between GE and RR engines was as simple as a regular engine change, that capability did not make it into the final aircraft design.

The only news info I can find about ANA 787 engines is that, two years ago, they said they were replacing all of their engines due to turbine blade problems. However, those were being replaced with newer RR engines.

As for the 75/25 split, I don’t think it’s that drastic. The general news items indicate the RR engine problem affects about 25% of the worldwide 787 fleet. However, not all RR-powered planes are affected. Certain models, including the Trent TEN engine, are excluded from the latest mess. Therefore. The actual breakdown of the fleet is about 25% with bad RR engines, some additional percent with “good” RR engines, and the rest with GEs.


----------



## cpotisch

Trogdor said:


> Changing engine types on an already-built jet is a costly and extensive process, and thus is rarely ever done.


It's easy on the 787, which was specially designed to operate interchangeably between the two engine types. To swap engines, all they have to do is slightly modify the pylons, stick on the new engines, and they're done.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cpotisch said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing engine types on an already-built jet is a costly and extensive process, and thus is rarely ever done.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy on the 787, which was specially designed to operate interchangeably between the two engine types. To swap engines, all they have to do is slightly modify the pylons, stick on the new engines, and they're done.
Click to expand...

None of the stories to which you linked claims NH is replacing RR with GE. Although the engines themselves are periodically swapped for maintenance and repair the engine type that was supplied at delivery is almost always the same type installed when the aircraft is decommissioned or written off decades later. Replacing 100 engines is a huge and expensive undertaking and RR has little if any incentive to assist NH with moving to another engine manufacturer.


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing engine types on an already-built jet is a costly and extensive process, and thus is rarely ever done.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy on the 787, which was specially designed to operate interchangeably between the two engine types. To swap engines, all they have to do is slightly modify the pylons, stick on the new engines, and they're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the stories to which you linked claims NH is replacing RR with GE. Although the engines themselves are periodically swapped for maintenance and repair the engine type that was supplied at delivery is almost always the same type installed when the aircraft is decommissioned or written off decades later. Replacing 100 engines is a huge and expensive undertaking and RR has little if any incentive to assist NH with moving to another engine manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I noticed that I had misread after I posted, and subsequently removed the links.


----------



## Ryan

cpotisch said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing engine types on an already-built jet is a costly and extensive process, and thus is rarely ever done.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy on the 787, which was specially designed to operate interchangeably between the two engine types. To swap engines, all they have to do is slightly modify the pylons, stick on the new engines, and they're done.
Click to expand...

 You cut off the Burninator's very next sentence...



Trogdor said:


> While originally Boeing wanted to design the 787 so that swapping between GE and RR engines was as simple as a regular engine change, *that capability did not make it into the final aircraft design.*


----------



## railiner

Did anyone see this report this evening?

Very troubling to hear alleged improper conduct by supervisor's over SWA mechanics pressuring them to ignore safety flaws, and general climate of poor safety 'culture'...

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Southwest-Pressures-Mechanics-to-Ignore-Problems-Complaint_New-York-481712101.html


----------



## PVD

I went back to the articles on the ANA swap, and when you read the whole article, (not just headline and summary -I' plead guilty) it is clear that they are swapping RR for RR, not going to GE so I was certainly wrong on that......


----------



## jis

Engine inspection procedures under examination after evidence points to premature fatigue crack in fan blade.

http://www.mro-network.com/safety-regulatory/inspection-procedures-emerge-focus-cfm56-7b-failures


----------



## railiner

I wonder if the aircraft would have had "Concorde sized" windows, would that have prevented the fatal accident of that passenger? Not that I am advocating tiny windows, as with that logic, the next progression would be to have no windows. Maybe some other way to harden the windows further?


----------



## jis

In the past, there have been examples of uncontained engine failure that caused body panels to puncture where there was no window, leading to explosive depressurization. Absence of windows is no guarantee for safety in the face of such failures.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> I wonder if the aircraft would have had "Concorde sized" windows, would that have prevented the fatal accident of that passenger? Not that I am advocating tiny windows, as with that logic, the next progression would be to have no windows. Maybe some other way to harden the windows further?


The 737 family is the world's most popular mainline commercial aircraft and has no known issues with window design or any predisposition toward uncontained engine failures leading to explosive decompression. Nor does the 737 need to survive the Concorde's unique mission and flight profile. This isn't the de Havilland Comet (previous example of known window and skin issues) and if the 737 had major design problems we should be seeing similar events all over the world. That being said, WN has been caught excessively delaying and improperly reporting mandatory maintenance and safety work in the past and it's not inconceivable that they didn't learn their lesson last time. I find it genuinely perplexing how a culture that reacts so strongly to airline related incidents and accidents is so quick to return to the false hope of self-regulation the moment things quite down again.


----------



## PVD

one of the selling points of the new generation 787 over its competition is that it has larger windows....if people only realized that windshield panels on planes crack way more often than passenger windows...


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> The 737 family is the world's most popular mainline commercial aircraft


I thought it's now the A320...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cpotisch said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 737 family is the world's most popular mainline commercial aircraft
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it's now the A320...
Click to expand...

What I mean is that the total number of B737 deliveries exceeds the total number of A320 deliveries. Either way the core point still stands. Unlike the extremely rare Concorde, if there were a critical flaw in the 737's design we should be seeing similar incidents and accidents all over the world by similarly aged/operated aircraft.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 737 family is the world's most popular mainline commercial aircraft
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it's now the A320...
Click to expand...

By March of this year, a total of 8,074 A320 family planes have been built, while the 10,000th 737 family plane was delivered in March this year. So no, it will take the 320 family many years to catch up.


----------



## PVD

define popular..... best selling family ever, easily the 737, best selling in its current iteration, the A320 neo has an edge over 737 max....


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> Unlike the extremely rare Concorde, if there were a critical flaw in the 737's design we should be seeing similar incidents and accidents all over the world by similarly aged/operated aircraft.


Yeah. The Concorde flew 700 mph faster and 20,000 feet higher than the 737. Concorde's windows took orders of magnitude more punishment than that of any normal airliner. So it would be total overkill to put those windows on a normal plane.


----------

