Certification, maintenance, doesn't matter to me, all I have been saying is that this should never happen and when it did happen the suspect aircraft should have been inspected. I'll further that by saying they should have been inspected, but if it was physically impossible to do they should have been grounded. I suspect the inspections will now be done in the allocated times, funny how that works. The only thing I complained about was delaying the inspections, which should have been obvious then and is very obvious now should have been performed ASAP. I believe the initial inspections were limited in scope to a sub-group of aircraft, which make me suspect they think they understand the issue.
X3, yes, the reference I noted specifically referenced the containment of blades, it also references that the "Equipment containing high energy rotors must be located where rotor failure will neither endanger the occupants nor adversely affect continued safe flight. ", the engine failed that part. You claim to be a turbine engineer yet you were unaware of this certification rule, you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept your word as gospel. Have a nice day.
Tarheel, a lady died, and quite frankly a whole planeload of people could have easily died in this incident, you are upset that I am questioning the delay of inspections that most likely would have prevented this from happening, and I'm the one with a problem? Lol, well anyway, thanks for letting me have the last word.
Actually certification and maintenance are two different matters. The whole point of certification is to provide operators with reasonable assurance that the parts of their plane will meet the standards. If not, there is a whole process that can be followed to either mandate further inspections or decertify the parts (require modifications). The revocation of the type certificate for the DC-10 is a perfect example of how that works. Likewise, the design issues on the Comet caused it to be withdrawn from service.
No, it shouldn't have happened, but at the same time we can also say that there should be no injuries, deaths, or failures of anything in transportation - cars, trucks, planes, or railroads. Yet parts DO fail, and steps are taken to minimize the risk. I personally think that 9 years of commercial aviation without a fatality is a pretty damn good record. Can it be better? Sure. That's the whole point of six-sigma and other techniques to reduce failure rate. We have made great strides through the failure-feedback-improvement-implementation process. We can do better - and will do better - the former head of maintenance for Delta has remarked that it may be time for a different approach to achieve future gains.
The agency proposed a time table, and the airline counterproposed a different timetable. I don't know what other airlines proposed. The FAA could have simply ignored the counterproposal (and it has in the past), which tells me that this is not simply a matter of Southwest being cheap, but a process problem.
We still don't have all the facts in on this case - of particular interest would be the reason that the containment mechanism failed, and why the cowling came apart as it did. That will lead to the changes you seek.
As for inspections, that's easy to say, but is complicated by the shortage of qualified maintenance people (like the pilot shortage), the fact that the fan blade parts may be installed as "serviceable" on other engines (complicating the task of deciding which engines to inspect - if an old blade is put on a newer engine, what inspection requirement applies and how long will it take to determine the history of each part), the time required (I've seen reports ranging from 4 to 10 hours per engine), the need to determine what exactly to inspect, and how to do it. Both FAA and EASA had recommendations for an AD for some time - EASA's AD was issued this month and gave the airlines 9 months to inspect, the FAA's had yet to be issued. Clearly the agencies didn't consider the problem serious or urgent enough (until now) to issue a mandatory directive prior to the normal process. The manufacturer issued recommendations, but those were not mandatory. I note that Southwest had outsourced heavy engine maintenance to GE, who is not exactly a disinterested party to the manufacturer.
I'd argue against the contention that incidents require knee-jerk reaction or grounding of fleets. By that standard, the entire B767 fleet should be grounded because of the uncontained AA engine failure and fire on the runway at ORD (AA383). Instead, we determine the cause and take action based on that. DL had an inflight fire of one of their engines on an A330 this week - that didn't cause grounding of the entire fleet or immediate inspections.
There's a reason that we have a regulatory and certification process. It's to determine the root cause and take action based on that, and it's to impose a safety process and culture while at the same time avoiding knee-jerk reactions. You may not be comfortable with that process. I am. We can scuttle the process and make manufacturer recommendations mandatory (which will essentially ground the entire small GA fleet, possibly excepting the Cirrus and EAB fleets) and impose high costs on everyone else. We can make it like the medical industry, in which it is estimated that 30% of the tests are unnecessary, and industry insurers control things. Or we can work within a regulatory structure and make improvements based on science and facts.
The solution is never as simple. And we cannot achieve zero-risk. You clearly have a different view, and that's OK.