Southwest oopsie - ‘woman partially sucked out of window’

PaulS said:
"Equipment containing high energy rotors must be located where rotor failure will neither endanger the occupants nor adversely affect continued safe flight. "
Click to expand...

An impossible standard to meet by any engine manufacturer.
 
X3 Skier said:
I can’t contain myself (pun intended).

According to the FAA, the engine met all of the criteria of the FAR’s otherwise the FAA would not have issued the certificate for commercial operation and thus is reliable by your definition. You may disagree with the FAA’s decision that it met all FAR Requirements but that doesn’t change the fact by your definition, as determined by the responsible agency, it is a reliable engine. If it’s reliable, it can’t be unreliable at the same time, or can it?

BTW, Since ETOPS, mentioned in one of your earlier posts (#286) as a good thing, in fact assumes there is a finite, if extremely small, both engines will fail on a twin engine aircraft over the ocean outside of gliding distance from a suitable airport, should ETOPS be allowed?

I understand you’re totally outraged about the implementation of inspections but all the other comments about certification, design, requirements, the FAA etc. and ad hominem attacks detract from any rational discussion of the facts other than a obvious disagreement about the pace of a known defect inspection.

I really need to go to my cave and retire again from this thread, but one never knows.

Cheers
Click to expand...

X3, only you and others bring up 100% reliability and zero tolerance for risk. I've never said anything of the sort, nor have I expressed "total outrage". Most of the ad hominems are coming from you and others. I'm sorry you are so sensitive, if you can't stand the heat, stay in your cave.

Oh, and it was reliable, right up until it wasn't, you know, at the first blade failure. I'm sure you guys will feel perfectly comfortable telling the deceased's family, "Ya, but it's reliable, it passed certification, so we decided to drag our feet on the inspections, you understand, risk, plus in my case, I'm an engineer. "

Cheers right back to you.
 
X3 Skier said:
You would be wrong.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Please back your claim with some examples.

Edit: On second thought, never mind, up until a day or two ago you didn't even know that containment was a requirement.

"BTW, again AFAIK, the engine is not designed to contain a rotor failure nor cause no damage to the fuselage unless the rules have changed."
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
You apparently are fine with known defects
Click to expand...

Known defects? I haven't seen nor heard of anything of the sort. :dunno:

Would you care to share where you got your info about these known defects you're speaking of for this particular engine type?
 
PaulS said:
I'm pretty sure all modern turbines are certified to that FAR, and pretty sure they do have to prove they will meet the standard.
Click to expand...

What's to prevent a blade from ricocheting off the other blades, exiting the air inlet, and taking out a window, which seems in large part what happened on this Southwest flight? Impossible to make anything 100 percent safe. Freak things happen.
 
@PaulS i don’t think anyone here is saying the engines shouldn’t have an inspection. The problem is your claims of negligence, stupidity etc. on the part of southwest and the FAA. Those claims are not true. You haven’t mentioned anything about all the other airlines flying cfm56 engines. Do you think they all raced to get non-mandated inspections completed on their engines just because of one blade failure? Almost every airline in the world operates the cfm56 family engine. It has the best safety record and lowest failure rate of any engine ever hung on an airplane.

I find it funny that you still don’t recognize that you are the one that is being emotional about this topic. This conversation has devolved into a MP skit and you are the punch line
 
PaulS said:
Please back your claim with some examples.

Edit: On second thought, never mind, up until a day or two ago you didn't even know that containment was a requirement.

"BTW, again AFAIK, the engine is not designed to contain a rotor failure nor cause no damage to the fuselage unless the rules have changed."
Click to expand...

Rotor containment is not and has never been a requirement for turbine aircraft engines in my 40+ years in the business. I was merely asking if it had changed. I assumed you would reference a FAR paragraph.

Please see FAR Part 33.94 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...faf9170d05790&mc=true&node=pt14.1.33&rgn=div5 regarding containment of blades. If you can point to the actual FAR, not some other web site as you are apparently relying on for your stating that rotor containment is required, please provide a link to the specific FAR Paragraph in the FAA or GPO Web Site.

There is no requirement to containment of rotors in the FAR I can identify. There is a requirement for over speed and over temperature design and related testing specifically to address potential rotor and disc failures as well as time and cycle limits but not containment of a rotor. I was right and as I said, you would be wrong.

If this is insufficient proof, tell me what would be if not the actual FAR on a Government web site.

Your comment about ad hominem is humorous. Thanks

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
@PaulS i don’t think anyone here is saying the engines shouldn’t have an inspection. The problem is your claims of negligence, stupidity etc. on the part of southwest and the FAA. Those claims are not true. You haven’t mentioned anything about all the other airlines flying cfm56 engines. Do you think they all raced to get non-mandated inspections completed on their engines just because of one blade failure? Almost every airline in the world operates the cfm56 family engine. It has the best safety record and lowest failure rate of any engine ever hung on an airplane.

I find it funny that you still don’t recognize that you are the one that is being emotional about this topic. This conversation has devolved into a MP skit and you are the punch line
Click to expand...

Were they all required to get these engines inspected? I don't recall seeing that they were, it seemed to me that the inspections were limited to a small subset of these engines, but the info release has been limited, since you are saying they were all required to be inspected you can enlighten me as to where you found this info?

Lol, this emotional bs is kind of funny to me. You guys keep doubling down defending what was an outright failure in the system that killed a passenger. You are ok with that, I am not.
 
This thread reminds me of Carl Sandburg’s comments about lawyers.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
 
PaulS said:
Were they all required to get these engines inspected? I don't recall seeing that they were, it seemed to me that the inspections were limited to a small subset of these engines, but the info release has been limited, since you are saying they were all required to be inspected you can enlighten me as to where you found this info?

Lol, this emotional bs is kind of funny to me. You guys keep doubling down defending what was an outright failure in the system that killed a passenger. You are ok with that, I am not.
Click to expand...
The system didn’t fail
 
X3 Skier said:
Rotor containment is not and has never been a requirement for turbine aircraft engines in my 40+ years in the business. I was merely asking if it had changed. I assumed you would reference a FAR paragraph.

Please see FAR Part 33.94 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...faf9170d05790&mc=true&node=pt14.1.33&rgn=div5 regarding containment of blades. If you can point to the actual FAR, not some other web site as you are apparently relying on for your stating that rotor containment is required, please provide a link to the specific FAR Paragraph in the FAA or GPO Web Site.

There is no requirement to containment of rotors in the FAR I can identify. There is a requirement for over speed and over temperature design and related testing specifically to address potential rotor and disc failures as well as time and cycle limits but not containment of a rotor. I was right and as I said, you would be wrong.

If this is insufficient proof, tell me what would be if not the actual FAR on a Government web site.

Your comment about ad hominem is humorous. Thanks

Cheers
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah, I don't care about ad hominems, fire away, point out mine if you must, I'd be curious as to what you are talking about.


I did reference an FAR, I'm not even a turbine engineer like you and I found it in 10 seconds. I can't understand it for you.


https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...164d762&mc=true&node=se14.1.25_11461&rgn=div8


§25.1461 Equipment containing high energy rotors.
(a) Equipment containing high energy rotors must meet paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

(b) High energy rotors contained in equipment must be able to withstand damage caused by malfunctions, vibration, abnormal speeds, and abnormal temperatures. In addition—

(1) Auxiliary rotor cases must be able to contain damage caused by the failure of high energy rotor blades; and

(2) Equipment control devices, systems, and instrumentation must reasonably ensure that no operating limitations affecting the integrity of high energy rotors will be exceeded in service.

(c) It must be shown by test that equipment containing high energy rotors can contain any failure of a high energy rotor that occurs at the highest speed obtainable with the normal speed control devices inoperative.

(d) Equipment containing high energy rotors must be located where rotor failure will neither endanger the occupants nor adversely affect continued safe flight.

[Amdt. 25-41, 42 FR 36971, July 18, 1977]
 
X3 Skier said:
Rotor containment is not and has never been a requirement for turbine aircraft engines in my 40+ years in the business. I was merely asking if it had changed. I assumed you would reference a FAR paragraph.

Please see FAR Part 33.94 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...faf9170d05790&mc=true&node=pt14.1.33&rgn=div5 regarding containment of blades. If you can point to the actual FAR, not some other web site as you are apparently relying on for your stating that rotor containment is required, please provide a link to the specific FAR Paragraph in the FAA or GPO Web Site.

There is no requirement to containment of rotors in the FAR I can identify. There is a requirement for over speed and over temperature design and related testing specifically to address potential rotor and disc failures as well as time and cycle limits but not containment of a rotor. I was right and as I said, you would be wrong.

If this is insufficient proof, tell me what would be if not the actual FAR on a Government web site.

Your comment about ad hominem is humorous. Thanks

Cheers
Click to expand...

PaulS said:
Blah, blah, blah, I don't care about ad hominems, fire away, point out mine if you must, I'd be curious as to what you are talking about.


I did reference an FAR, I'm not even a turbine engineer like you and I found it in 10 seconds. I can't understand it for you.


https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...164d762&mc=true&node=se14.1.25_11461&rgn=div8


§25.1461 Equipment containing high energy rotors.
(a) Equipment containing high energy rotors must meet paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

(b) High energy rotors contained in equipment must be able to withstand damage caused by malfunctions, vibration, abnormal speeds, and abnormal temperatures. In addition—

(1) Auxiliary rotor cases must be able to contain damage caused by the failure of high energy rotor blades; and

(2) Equipment control devices, systems, and instrumentation must reasonably ensure that no operating limitations affecting the integrity of high energy rotors will be exceeded in service.

(c) It must be shown by test that equipment containing high energy rotors can contain any failure of a high energy rotor that occurs at the highest speed obtainable with the normal speed control devices inoperative.

(d) Equipment containing high energy rotors must be located where rotor failure will neither endanger the occupants nor adversely affect continued safe flight.

[Amdt. 25-41, 42 FR 36971, July 18, 1977]
Click to expand...

Wrong reference which I will explain.

I agree you are not a turbine engineer since your reference is for Part 25 airframe equipment such as APU’s, Airconditioning equipment and other rotating machinery and does does not apply to aircraft engines which are covered by Part 33. I agree Part 25 equipment must contain rotor failures but it Isn’t relevant. Once again if you can find in Part 33, a similar requirement for aircraft engines rotor containment, please do so. Until then I am right and you are wrong. If you find it, I am wrong and you are right.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
This thread reminds me of Carl Sandburg’s comments about lawyers.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
Click to expand...

Projection.
 
X3 Skier said:
Wrong reference which I will explain.

I agree you are not a turbine engineer since your reference is for Part 25 airframe equipment such as APU’s, Airconditioning equipment and other rotating machinery and does does not apply to aircraft engines which are covered by Part 33. I agree Part 25 equipment must contain rotor failures but it Isn’t relevant. Once again if you can find in Part 33, a similar requirement for aircraft engines rotor containment, please do so. Until then I am right and you are wrong. If you find it, I am wrong and you are right.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Lol, I keep finding paragraphs to show you are wrong, hell, you even found paragraphs to prove you are wrong, so you start parsing words. The engine failed, it was not contained, there are certification requirements that are supposed to be met to prevent rotating parts from causing damage, either directly, as in the first accident, or maybe indirectly ( we don't know where that blade ended up, it could have taken out that window). You want to talk split hairs about rotors or blades, I don't care, you were wrong, suck it up buttercup.
 
PaulS said:
Lol, I keep finding paragraphs to show you are wrong, hell, you even found paragraphs to prove you are wrong, so you start parsing words. The engine failed, it was not contained, there are certification requirements that are supposed to be met to prevent rotating parts from causing damage, either directly, as in the first accident, or maybe indirectly ( we don't know where that blade ended up, it could have taken out that window). You want to talk split hairs about rotors or blades, I don't care, you were wrong, suck it up buttercup.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You have stated a number of times the engine rotor must be contained by FAR when it isn’t and was totally irrelevant to the accident. I observed it wasn’t and offered proof. What FAR paragraph I provided proves I was wrong about rotor containment?

Changing the subject to blades, blade containment and name calling are also irrelevant. If you don’t wish to discuss your assertion than the engine rotor must be contained by FAR, as recently as Post #322 “I'm pretty sure all modern turbines are certified to that FAR, and pretty sure they do have to prove they will meet the standard.” OK by me.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Interesting. You have stated a number of times the engine rotor must be contained by FAR when it isn’t and was totally irrelevant to the accident. I observed it wasn’t and offered proof. What FAR paragraph I provided proves I was wrong about rotor containment?

Changing the subject to blades, blade containment and name calling are also irrelevant. If you don’t wish to discuss your assertion than the engine rotor must be contained by FAR, as recently as Post #322 “I'm pretty sure all modern turbines are certified to that FAR, and pretty sure they do have to prove they will meet the standard.” OK by me.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Lol, my assertion was that delaying the inspections was BS and shouldn't have been done. You've led me down this primrose path of rotors and blades.

I wonder in your world what a conversation about this at CFM would look like:

M "We just had an engine failure, looks like a blade separated and killed a passenger, I thought we were supposed to contain failures."

X3 Engineer : " What failed"

M " The rotor"

X3 Engineer : " I've never heard that we are supposed to contain rotor failures."

M "Hmmm, it's in several different parts of the FARs, these engines aren't supposed to come from together and if they do, they aren't supposed to damage anything outside of the engine. "

X3 Engineer : " Nope, never heard that, I just saw that is was a blade that failed, that's not a rotor."

M " Well, here are several paragraphs from the fars, see it says it right here."

X3 Engineer : " Oh well, the rotor didn't fail, it was a blade, that's not a rotor, show me where it says the rotor has to be contained."

M " Well I just showed you, here it says it here too, damage from rotating parts must be minimized."

X3 Engineer : "Nope, been doing this for 40 years, can't contain a rotor failure, tell me where you saw that? It was a blade."

M " Isn't a blade part of the rotor assembly?"

X3 Engineer : " Nope, I'm a turbine engineer, you are not, don't want to talk about it any more with you. "
 
PaulS said:
...my assertion was that delaying the inspections was BS and shouldn't have been done...
Click to expand...

That’s a nice opinion and your entitled to it. Should have stopped there.
 
PaulS said:
... I'm pretty comfortable I've forgotten more about statistics than you know. ...
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are. In fact you are so comfortable being superior to everyone here I am surprised that you grace us with your presence.

My favorite internet cartoon:
Internet_dog.jpg
 
PaulS said:
Write a letter to the family of the lady who was killed telling them that. I'm sure it will be comforting for them to hear that from you.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they don’t care what either one of us thinks. Keep that emotional based argument going. You’re good at it chief.
 
airdale said:
I'm sure you are. In fact you are so comfortable being superior to everyone here I am surprised that you grace us with your presence.

My favorite internet cartoon:
Internet_dog.jpg
Click to expand...

Let's see according to you guys, I hate all pilots, I can't tolerate risk, I'm upset, I'm emotional, I don't know what I'm talking about, my posts are full of ad hominems.... Oh and from you, Do you leave your house? Do you cross the street when cars are present? Do you drive over 30 mph? You should try an adult education class.... way to add to the conversation, thanks.
 
As of this morning:
--it has not been determined if the fan blades on the affected engine would have been subject to the inspection required last year
--there is no evidence of high speed engine parts striking the fuselage
--there are paint transfers on the L/H leading edge and fuselage area near the ruptured window
--there is no evidence of window material inside the fuselage
--there was a delay between engine parameter change and cabin pressure change
--during initial event aircraft banked 40+ degrees
and the investigation continues.....
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I’m sure they don’t care what either one of us thinks. Keep that emotional based argument going. You’re good at it chief.
Click to expand...
Poo flinging aside, I’m legitimately curious to hear your explanation to the statement:
Tarheelpilot said:
The system didn’t fail
Click to expand...

We obviously know that isn’t the case here.
 
PaulS said:
And Bill, I find it interesting that each one of you arguing with me that you feel this event is perfectly acceptable in the grand scheme of things and that this lady died in the necessary advancement of science, or whatever warped justification you use in your heads. You and others keep personalizing this and trying to compare it to GA situations, each situation is different so your comparisons are meaningless.

I'm not a zero risk guy, I'm a don't take stupid risks guy. Flying those engines without inspecting them was a stupid risk, and it killed that lady, it could have killed many more. I'm all in for routing stupidity, apparently it's a momentous task judging from some of the comments here.
Click to expand...
Mischaracterization.

At no time did I make this personal other than to say I'm comfortable with the process, and YMMV. That's it.

Fact: Until this week the FAA had not issued any AD or order to inspect the fan blades. ADs had been issued in 2010 and 2012 for different CFM engines. The airline was under no obligation to conduct other than routine/regular inspections absent an AD. That's fact. If you want to verify it, here's the link to the FAA AD database list of CFM ADs: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/search/?q=CFM

Having dealt with both the FAA and other federal regulatory agencies (and having worked for one such agency in the past), the normal process - absent an "emergency order" - is to propose an AD and ask for comments. I have not read the actual comments (perhaps you have), but my understanding is that Southwest requested a longer compliance period. In either case - the proposed period or Southwest's request - this event occurred before that period would have ended IF the AD had been issued. It hadn't, so there was no mandatory compliance.

I can also state that most entities - commercial airlines all the way down to the bug smashers - take a view that doing work before an order (or AD) is final may well be counterproductive. Why? Because the specific requirements of the inspection may change, resulting in the need to redo (or cost more) for the inspection.

I'll make it personal to me - this does not apply to you: I owned a Commander 112TC for quite a while. The FAA came out with an AD that would have required major work on the tail feathers just to inspect the elevator spar for cracks. By major work, I mean removing the elevator from the plane, removing elevator ribs, removing the end caps, cleaning, inspection with certain gear, reassembling the elevator and ribs using new hardware, and reinstalling/rebalancing. A short time after the AD came out, an AMOC was released to permit the use of a borescope without removing the elevator from the plane (and without the potential damage from removing/reriviting the rib). Huge cost difference. I liken it to the difference between a full colonoscopy and the use of the new Cologard testing. I'll point out that such has nothing to do with you.

While this doesn't apply directly to the situation at hand, it does point out the risk/reward before an AD becomes final and the potential for a much better solution through an AMOC process. I'll also point to the Samsung Note 7 matter: Samsung issued a recall and warning without involving the CPSC - they got in trouble because it was not "official" and they were supposed to notify the CPSC, who was supposed to issue the recall, which Samsung was supposed to comply with. In other words, they got their hands slapped for taking their own action without government agency officialdom. From my experience in industry, I know that other companies wouldn't want to be similarly raked over the coals for doing things in the absence of an official order. Companies will deny that, but it does happen.

Am I comfortable that a woman died? No. Not in the least.

Did the process work? It worked as it was designed to work. There was no AD or order, Southwest had no mandate to comply, and frankly any inspection they did may not have complied with the final AD. Serious question: if you were running techops/QA for Southwest, what standard would you have inspected to absent an FAA order?

Should the process be changed? Good question. First we need to define the goal. The design the best process we can to achieve that goal. As an engineer who qualified for 6-sigma, I can tell you that it's a lot harder taking a system to eliminating the risk of even a single death in 9 years than it is to go from 1-2 major accidents/deaths a year to where we are now. Can it be done? Probably. Do we have the current process in place to do it? Probably not.

Yes, there will be lawsuits. Yes, Southwest will be held to account for what happened. And yes, the airline will point to the lack of a final FAA AD. The NTSB will also weigh in with recommendations.

Regulations cut both ways: they can help make things safer or consumer friendly, but at the same time they impose rigid requirements that discourage some voluntary actions that might improve things even more.
 
wsuffa said:
Mischaracterization.

At no time did I make this personal other than to say I'm comfortable with the process, and YMMV. That's it.

Fact: Until this week the FAA had not issued any AD or order to inspect the fan blades. ADs had been issued in 2010 and 2012 for different CFM engines. The airline was under no obligation to conduct other than routine/regular inspections absent an AD. That's fact. If you want to verify it, here's the link to the FAA AD database list of CFM ADs: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/search/?q=CFM

Having dealt with both the FAA and other federal regulatory agencies (and having worked for one such agency in the past), the normal process - absent an "emergency order" - is to propose an AD and ask for comments. I have not read the actual comments (perhaps you have), but my understanding is that Southwest requested a longer compliance period. In either case - the proposed period or Southwest's request - this event occurred before that period would have ended IF the AD had been issued. It hadn't, so there was no mandatory compliance.

I can also state that most entities - commercial airlines all the way down to the bug smashers - take a view that doing work before an order (or AD) is final may well be counterproductive. Why? Because the specific requirements of the inspection may change, resulting in the need to redo (or cost more) for the inspection.

I'll make it personal to me - this does not apply to you: I owned a Commander 112TC for quite a while. The FAA came out with an AD that would have required major work on the tail feathers just to inspect the elevator spar for cracks. By major work, I mean removing the elevator from the plane, removing elevator ribs, removing the end caps, cleaning, inspection with certain gear, reassembling the elevator and ribs using new hardware, and reinstalling/rebalancing. A short time after the AD came out, an AMOC was released to permit the use of a borescope without removing the elevator from the plane (and without the potential damage from removing/reriviting the rib). Huge cost difference. I liken it to the difference between a full colonoscopy and the use of the new Cologard testing. I'll point out that such has nothing to do with you.

While this doesn't apply directly to the situation at hand, it does point out the risk/reward before an AD becomes final and the potential for a much better solution through an AMOC process. I'll also point to the Samsung Note 7 matter: Samsung issued a recall and warning without involving the CPSC - they got in trouble because it was not "official" and they were supposed to notify the CPSC, who was supposed to issue the recall, which Samsung was supposed to comply with. In other words, they got their hands slapped for taking their own action without government agency officialdom. From my experience in industry, I know that other companies wouldn't want to be similarly raked over the coals for doing things in the absence of an official order. Companies will deny that, but it does happen.

Am I comfortable that a woman died? No. Not in the least.

Did the process work? It worked as it was designed to work. There was no AD or order, Southwest had no mandate to comply, and frankly any inspection they did may not have complied with the final AD. Serious question: if you were running techops/QA for Southwest, what standard would you have inspected to absent an FAA order?

Should the process be changed? Good question. First we need to define the goal. The design the best process we can to achieve that goal. As an engineer who qualified for 6-sigma, I can tell you that it's a lot harder taking a system from 1-2 major accidents/deaths a year to eliminating the risk of even a single death in 9 years. Can it be done? Probably. Do we have the current process in place to do it? Probably not.

Yes, there will be lawsuits. Yes, Southwest will be held to account for what happened. And yes, the airline will point to the lack of a final FAA AD.

Regulations cut both ways: they can help make things safer or consumer friendly, but at the same time they impose rigid requirements that discourage some voluntary actions that might improve things even more.
Click to expand...

Ah mischaracterization, how does it feel?
 
Thread re-opened.

Everyone play nice. There's no need for peeing matches of this proportion and they tend to get out of hand.
 
Last edited:
Just waiting for the NTSB...
 
PaulS said:
Write a letter to the family of the lady who was killed telling them that. I'm sure it will be comforting for them to hear that from you.
Click to expand...
I'm confused again. Is perfection the minimum acceptable standard, or not? If not, then people will die. If you're ok with less than perfection, as you say, then you must ok with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top