Catastrophic Engine failure on Southwest Airlines 737

[Graham2001]

This reminds me of an accident from the 1970s, although in that case the crew were directly responsible for what happened by experimenting with the controls, which I am very certain was not the cause in this case.

On November 3, 1973, a National Airlines DC-10-10 aircraft (N60NA) was operating as a scheduled passenger flight between Miami and San Francisco with intermediate stops at New Orleans, Houston, and Las Vegas (NA Flight 27).

At about 4:40 p.m., while the aircraft was cruising at 39,000 feet (12,000 m) 65 miles southwest of Albuquerque, the No. 3 (starboard) engine fan assembly disintegrated in an uncontained failure. Its fragments penetrated the fuselage, the Nos. 1 and 2 engine nacelles, and the right wing area. The resultant damage caused decompression of the aircraft cabin and the loss of certain electrical and hydraulic systems.

One passenger, G.F. Gardner of Beaumont, Texas, was partially forced into the opening made by a failed cabin window, after it too was struck by engine fragments. He was temporarily retained in that position by his seatbelt. "Efforts to pull the passenger back into the airplane by another passenger were unsuccessful, and the occupant of seat 17H was forced entirely through the cabin window."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_27

 

[Urwumpe]

And it wasn't really a large hole according to the report, just about 10 x 16 inches.

 

[Graham2001]

Here are the first and second NTSB media briefings on the accident.,

 

[ADSWNJ]

As expected, incoming Emergency Airworthiness Directive related to this incident:

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4b798bcf&opt=0

 

[Keatah]

Perhaps the technology is being pushed too hard and for too long. All in the name of profits to benefit upper-level executives.

All of them. Take a $500,000 year pay cut, and put that money toward maintenance inspections or similar.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

Just imagine what it means to an airline to be demoted to the same level of confidence as a guy building a plane in his barn.

Guy building plane in barn is likely safer than big airline full of cost-cutting measures.

 

[boogabooga]

Perhaps the technology is being pushed too hard and for too long. All in the name of profits to benefit upper-level executives.

All of them. Take a $500,000 year pay cut, and put that money toward maintenance inspections or similar.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------



Guy building plane in barn is likely safer than big airline full of cost-cutting measures.

:facepalm:

Flying commercial aviation is still by far one of the safest things that you can DO.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Agreed. Though there are still a few cheapskate airlines left (glares at Allegiant), for the most part thosr kinds of operations have been driven out of business by accidents. Think back twenty to thirty years, and look at how many of the low-cost airlines have survived.

 

[Linguofreak]

Even then, I'd say most of the "deadly" low cost airlines were probably safer than flying your own plane. People taking risks with their own safety is not seen as negatively as companies taking risks with customer's safety, and people get complacent. That's not to say that GA is particularly dangerous, just that you get a lot more scrutiny, both from the public and from the government, if your worst case scenario is "you auger in with your family on a flight to your summer cottage" rather than "you auger in with a plane full of several hundred people", and if you're making hundreds or thousands of flights per day, you can have several bad accidents happen in a relatively short timeframe even if your accident rate is so low that it doesn't, in average, significantly affect the lifespan of your passengers.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Hmmm...
Southwest Airlines protested airworthiness directive designed to prevent engine failures

While a National Transportation Safety Board investigation is still underway, NTSB officials confirmed that the uncontained engine failure aboard Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 was the result of a fan blade breaking from a crack near the fan's hub. The failure is similar to one that occurred on another Southwest flight in September 2016.
...
After that incident, the manufacturer of the engine—CFM International—issued a technical bulletin urging customers to conduct more frequent ultrasonic inspections of the fan in the type of turbofan engine used by Southwest's 737 Next Generation aircraft. In 2017, CFM even asked the FAA to enact a new rule requiring those checks. But Southwest Airlines opposed the proposed change to inspection frequency, stating in a comment to the FAA that it would take longer for the airline to comply because of the number of engines in its fleet...

 

[boogabooga]

Yeah, that's probably going to affect their P.R...

 

[Keatah]

So, yeh, cost-cutting.

 

[Graham2001]

So, yeh, cost-cutting.

Bean-counters and safety are contra-indicated, this has been proven time and time again, from Whiddy Island in 1979 to Air Transat Flight 236 in 2001 to this event.

 

[Urwumpe]

Bean-counters and safety are contra-indicated, this has been proven time and time again, from Whiddy Island in 1979 to Air Transat Flight 236 in 2001 to this event.

Generally: Safety costs money.

You can have some safety for free, but even safer processes will cost you time and thus money.

Thus you should always be prepared to counter bean counters messing with your safety with the ultimate argument: Its my responsibility to make sure everybody gets to his destination alive.

Even I do such discussions from time to time. When my software is hacked and customer data is stolen, its my fault that I did not follow development standards. Thus, I won't do it, unless the requirement for that reduction in safety has a customer name on it.

And guess how unlikely customers are to put their name on a derived requirement to explicitly remove a safety feature... I know, I am evil.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Best way to counter the cost-cutting bean counters: "Sure, we can cut costs by skimping on safety now... But WHEN, not IF, that results in an accident, how much will that cost in repairs, fines, legal fees, lost revenues because passengers won't trust us, and, in worst-case scenarios, paying for injures or deaths of passengers and/or crew?"

 

[RisingFury]

:facepalm:

Flying commercial aviation is still by far one of the safest things that you can DO.

In fact, not flying gets people killed.

If there's someone you need to be and you take a car, bus, train or any other mode of transportation, you're more likely to die than flying on a commercial airplane.

 

[Urwumpe]

In fact, not flying gets people killed.

I have heard, most people die in their beds. :tiphat:

 

[Andy44]

I've heard that most people die.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I've heard that most people die.

Life has a 100% mortality rate. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Life has a 100% mortality rate. :lol:

And all people who died had been breathing just before they died... could be some causality.

 

[Notebook]

I'm Spartacus!