adam88 wrote: » They mean crew of five which I would take suggest 3 cabin crew. Is that normal on a 737????
368100 wrote: » Is the engine housing not designed to normally contain debris from such an explosion? Obviously under "normal" circumstances....
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 :
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.
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
SeeMoreBut wrote: » Dobbo just short of saying should we say to people not get on Ryanair until we know what went wrong
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.
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
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/
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.
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?
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.
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.
user1842 wrote: » No more window seats for me.
jvan wrote: » Not only that type engine, i don't remember every hearing of a passenger fatality from any engine parts entering the cabin.
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
oleras wrote: » Keep the seat belt fastened, be grand.
