Southwest Engine Explosion - passenger dead

BowSideChamp

Big investigation on the uncontained engine explosion. Horrible way to die.


https://nypost.com/2018/04/17/southwest-passenger-dead-after-midair-engine-explosion/

Car99

Second inlet cowl disentigration on southwest 737 in under 2 years. Eng 1 the last time aswell with nearly identical damages.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472

kona

SNIP Unsubstantiated speculation removed.

2nd incident in 2 years for the same airline, with damage to parts that are routinely inspected for this exact reason.
Theres tens on thousands of cfm56 in operation, bit of a coincidence that its happend twice in a year to the same airline which the faa has concerns over their standard of maintenace.

What Username Guidelines

While still a very serious incident, this is a pretty heavy headline from the independent

“One person killed after plane engine breaks off and smashes cabin window”

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/one-person-killed-after-plane-engine-breaks-off-and-smashes-cabin-window-36816749.html

silverharp

1st person killed in over 10 years in the US, how safe is air travel, im always in awe of how awesome everyone is that plays their part in keeping everyone safe

adam88

They mean crew of five which I would take suggest 3 cabin crew. Is that normal on a 737????

368100

Is the engine housing not designed to normally contain debris from such an explosion? Obviously under "normal" circumstances....

Locker10a

adam88 wrote: »

They mean crew of five which I would take suggest 3 cabin crew. Is that normal on a 737????

Yes, provided the aircraft has less that 150 seats
It’s one Crew member per 50 passengers, that’s the legal minimum.

gctest50

368100 wrote: »

Is the engine housing not designed to normally contain debris from such an explosion? Obviously under "normal" circumstances....

Better off not to sit in line with the spinning disk of death - leave that for others


or if it has propellers, better off not near the spinning blades of death :

Irish Steve

For some non sensationalist reporting and some photos, this incident has been reported on AvHerald http://avherald.com/h?article=4b7725fb&opt=0

L1011

gctest50 wrote: »

Better off not to sit in line with the spinning disk of death - leave that for others


or if it has propellers, better off not near the spinning blades of death :

Behind is probably as risky for fan components, and indeed this one appears to be behind

This has happened so rarely as to not be a concern for the average flyer.

plodder

"evidence of metal fatigue right where the blade separated."

There's an expert talking about the incident on RTE R1 but hasn't mentioned that.

SeeMoreBut

plodder wrote: »

"evidence of metal fatigue right where the blade separated."

There's an expert talking about the incident on RTE R1 but hasn't mentioned that.

Dobbo just short of saying should we say to people not get on Ryanair until we know what went wrong

knucklehead6

Irish Steve wrote: »

For some non sensationalist reporting and some photos, this incident has been reported on AvHerald http://avherald.com/h?article=4b7725fb&opt=0

just don't read the comments. Don't EVER read the comments.

L1011

SeeMoreBut wrote: »

Dobbo just short of saying should we say to people not get on Ryanair until we know what went wrong

Despite the primary competition out of Ireland using the same engine

There are probably close to 20000 CFM56 in operation worldwide, this clearly doesn't happen often

user1842

I still don't understand why the engine did not contain the debris. Are they not specifically designed and tested to do just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8_Gnbp2JA

This accident could have major implications if a design fault is found.

RIP to that poor woman.

cnocbui

user1842 wrote: »

I still don't understand why the engine did not contain the debris. Are they not specifically designed and tested to do just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8_Gnbp2JA

This accident could have major implications if a design fault is found.

RIP to that poor woman.

Think about it, each engine is producing half the energy that's pushing 45 tonns through the air at more than half the speed of sound. When the engine fails structurally, A significant proportion of that energy is imparted to all the pieces that decide to go their own way, in a fraction of a second.

Yes the cowl is designed to contain a certain amount of material and energy, but it also has to be a realistic weight so there has to be a compromise.

It could just be that particular engine failed in a Murphy's law fashion that few realistic materials could contain.

kona

L1011 wrote: »

Despite the primary competition out of Ireland using the same engine

There are probably close to 20000 CFM56 in operation worldwide, this clearly doesn't happen often

Its happend twice to the same airline. Have a read of this:

https://aviation.travel/faa-southwest-airlines-maintenance-safety-in-question-again/

L1011

kona wrote: »

Its happend twice to the same airline. Have a read of this:

https://aviation.travel/faa-southwest-airlines-maintenance-safety-in-question-again/

The largest operator of the type in the world.

Dardania

cnocbui wrote: »

user1842 wrote: »

I still don't understand why the engine did not contain the debris. Are they not specifically designed and tested to do just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8_Gnbp2JA

This accident could have major implications if a design fault is found.

RIP to that poor woman.

Think about it, each engine is producing half the energy that's pushing 45 tonns through the air at more than half the speed of sound.  When the engine fails structurally,   A significant proportion of that energy is imparted to all the pieces that decide to go their own way, in a fraction of a second.

Yes the cowl is designed to contain a certain amount of material and energy, but it also has to be a realistic weight so there has to be a compromise.

It could just be that particular engine failed in a Murphy's law fashion that few realistic materials could contain.

I was thinking the same (this is a failure of containment system...) however:
- no loss of controllability of the jet (e.g. hydraulics still worked)
- no structural damage to the frame (that inhibited a mostly normal landing)
It seems just rotten luck that something punctured the window behind - some sort of shrapnel. I wonder if the reason that happened is bbecause the jet was climbing at the time, so as the shrapnel "fell" it fell in the path of the climbing jet?

cnocbui

Dardania wrote: »

I was thinking the same (this is a failure of containment system...) however:
- no loss of controllability of the jet (e.g. hydraulics still worked)
- no structural damage to the frame (that inhibited a mostly normal landing)
It seems just rotten luck that something punctured the window behind - some sort of shrapnel. I wonder if the reason that happened is bbecause the jet was climbing at the time, so as the shrapnel "fell" it fell in the path of the climbing jet?

No, not really. The front of a jet engine has a lot of comparatively long and large compressor blades that from a sort of disc. The disc spins at roughly 5,400 rpm during takeoff. Centrifugal force on the root of each blade is enormous at 100 tonnes - think swinging a weight on the end of a string - let go the string and the weight and string will only and can only travel outward in the direction the string is pointing. Now imagine the outward force on your string and weight is 100 tonnes - the weight of 77 cars - imagine what happens when a blade breaks at it's root. The front disc of turbine blades is basically like a potential bomb that wants to explode outwards in the plane of the disc when it goes off. Most of the potential disc of destruction is air, and away from the plane, as the front of the engine generally protrudes in front of the wing, but the body of the plane is within that disc also. That's what happened to the unfortunate passenger. Her window was in the firing line of that disc and was smashed.

The cowling is designed to act as a sort of bulletproof vest to contain the disc of destruction when it goes off, but it's up against it, to say the least.

Edit: I wrote this before seeing pictures and video of the plane. Reports say one turbine blade broke and is missing. That seems to have caused the front cowling to fail and completely disintegrate. The affected window is actually not in line with the front of the engine but further back in line with the wings trailing edge so it would seem likely that part of the cowling came off with a sideways momentum and the airstream blew it backwards so it angled back and struck the window.

user1842

cnocbui wrote: »

No, not really. The front of a jet engine has a lot of comparatively long and large compressor blades that from a sort of disc. The disc spins at roughly 5,400 rpm during takeoff. Centrifugal force on the root of each blade is enormous at 100 tonnes - think swinging a weight on the end of a string - let go the string and the weight and string will only and can only travel outward in the direction the string is pointing. Now imagine the outward force on your string and weight is 100 tonnes - the weight of 77 cars - imagine what happens when a blade breaks at it's root. The front disc of turbine blades is basically like a potential bomb that wants to explode outwards in the plane of the disc when it goes off. Most of the potential disc of destruction is air, and away from the plane, as the front of the engine generally protrudes in front of the wing, but the body of the plane is within that disc also. That's what happened to the unfortunate passenger. Her window was in the firing line of that disc and was smashed.

The cowling is designed to act as a sort of bulletproof vest to contain the disc of destruction when it goes off, but it's up against it, to say the least.

No more window seats for me.

prunudo

L1011 wrote: »

Despite the primary competition out of Ireland using the same engine

There are probably close to 20000 CFM56 in operation worldwide, this clearly doesn't happen often

Not only that type engine, i don't remember every hearing of a passenger fatality from any engine parts entering the cabin.
Strange how the media are jumping all over this, I would have thought there are many more crashes worldwide that should get more attention. Still the safest form of transport by a long way.

L1011

jvan wrote: »

Not only that type engine, i don't remember every hearing of a passenger fatality from any engine parts entering the cabin.
Strange how the media are jumping all over this, I would have thought there are many more crashes worldwide that should get more attention. Still the safest form of transport by a long way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_27 is very similar (hit by parts, pulled out window, etc) but there have also been total hull losses with most or all onboard killed. UA232 definitely the most famous

cnocbui

user1842 wrote: »

No more window seats for me.

If you knew what your chances of dying were just sitting on the toilet, you wouldn't want that particular seat ever again either.

oleras

user1842 wrote: »

No more window seats for me.

Keep the seat belt fastened, be grand.

Mebuntu

jvan wrote: »

Not only that type engine, i don't remember every hearing of a passenger fatality from any engine parts entering the cabin.

Delta MD88 on takeoff at Pensacola in 1996. Two killed. Different engine, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1288

Tabnabs

https://twitter.com/SweeneyABC/status/986288393868005376/photo/1

prunudo

L1011 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_27 is very similar (hit by parts, pulled out window, etc) but there have also been total hull losses with most or all onboard killed. UA232 definitely the most famous

As soon as I typed it I was thinking I bet I've forgotten about an obvious one. Still very rare occurrences though. Both those you've linked to are nearly 30 and 40 years ago.

Fattes

Turns out the pilot is a former Naval aviator and one of the first Female F18 pilots! Can't bear the training from the worlds 3rd biggest airforce

HTCOne

oleras wrote: »

Keep the seat belt fastened, be grand.

The deceased passenger had her seatbelt fastened.

jjbrien

HTCOne wrote: »

The deceased passenger had her seatbelt fastened.

RIP to the passenger a horrible way to go out

adam88

I was led to believe the passenger that got “sucked out” is alive.

The passenger that died, died from a heart attach brought about from the panic of the situation.

Splitting hairs I know but still

bilbot79

adam88 wrote: »

I was led to believe the passenger that got “sucked out” is alive.

The passenger that died, died from a heart attach brought about from the panic of the situation.

Splitting hairs I know but still

Did the one that got sucked out not die of her injuries later. Can't imagine what that looked like, was her body ripped apart?

HTCOne

adam88 wrote: »

I was led to believe the passenger that got “sucked out” is alive.

The passenger that died, died from a heart attach brought about from the panic of the situation.

Splitting hairs I know but still

Well in an interview, one of the paramedics on the ground who responded said they knew she couldn’t survive after seeing the head trauma. Now whether that trauma was caused by the debris that took out the window or as a result of impacting the fuselage I don’t know, and would rather not spend any more time thinking about to be honest. There was an awful lot of blood on the fuselage after landing by all accounts.

Homer

Just NO. Not funny, so removed

Tony EH

God, that poor woman.

What an absolutely horrific incident. That can't have been an easy death.

cnocbui

Homer wrote: »

silly pic

Pathetic, inaccurate, not funny.

Dardania

cnocbui wrote: »

Homer wrote: »

silly pic

Pathetic, inaccurate, not funny.

yeah, not cool

Irish Steve

FAA have issued an EAD (Emergency Airworthiness Directive) for inspection of CFM56-7D engines (the engine involved in this incident) requiring inspection of all engines with more than 30,000 cycles, of which there are nearly 700 worldwide. The ultrasonic inspection of the fan blades has to be carried out within 20 days.

This latest action comes on top of an existing less urgent Service Bulletin that requires the same inspection of all engines of this model, with mandatory reporting of findings.

0lddog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHZxuHERaCU

Gael23

What a terrible way to die.
Two people died here?

L1011

Gael23 wrote: »

What a terrible way to die.
Two people died here?

"only" one.