When you take pictures, you do not ASK PERMISSION to publish them.

That is what people do in mainland China. Not here in the US. In the US, we are a free country. You publish your pictures first, and let the FAA ask questions later. Not the other way around.

Um. Use a lot of windex, huh?

People almost died, and southwest lied, to coin a phrase. All I can say is hooray for cellphone cameras and quick-thinking average people.

Do you find comfort in pointing out others mistakes? A serious matter is being discussed and you can’t ‘hardly’ take the matter seriously due to their spelling and grammar usage? grow up…..

There was no “cover up” and I am certain that if you dig through the FAA web site you will find the actual report that details both what the pilots thought was happening and the report from the ground that lists the actual damage.

Get a grip people.

Can’t damn a maintenance crew until you know a cause.

Has anyone considered the possibility of some sort of debris (which seems unlikely but not impossible) entering the engine?

It is even possible the crew followed absolute standards and received a substandard part.

The only real issue is the lie by the airline regarding the incident. PR nightmare for them.

we should all be impressed how this craft safely made it home.

The pictures show what’s called an “uncontained turbine failure” or “uncontained compressor failure”. That means that some “rotary blades” (actually, turbine or compressor blades) fractured or disintegrated while the engine was rotating and were shot outward, with parts completely penetrating the engine cowling, the external, visible cover of the engine.

(As an aside for Alex U., Boeing has never built jet engines or turbine or compressor blades, so either your HS teacher was mistaken or your memory of what he said is faulty.)

Because jet engines rotate at incredibly high speeds (20,000 rpm is not uncommon) the engine cowling is designed to contain parts that come apart, as another commenter stated. Occasionally, as in this case, the dynamics of the engine failure resulted in a few small pieces completely exiting the engine cowling.

Yes, passengers have been killed when high-speed metal debris penetrated the fuselage but, relative to the number of passengers flown in a year, your odds are better of winning the lottery. It is also highly unlikely the aircraft would have crashed due to debris penetrating the fuselage. Multiple redundant systems make this extremely rare. Again, you’re more likely to actually win playing PowerBall.

One of the comments mentioned that “a big chunk of the engine flew off.” This is not uncommon either. The whole cowling around the outside of the engine is actually several pieces that have hinges and latches so they can be opened to perform maintenance on the engine.

In an uncontained engine failure it’s possible for flying debris to destroy the latches and cause the cowling to pop open, and then the slipstream (the high velocity air passing over the airplane as it flies) will peel the cowling all the way off, just like the hood of a NASCAR racer does in a high-speed collision.

I’d like to also set the record straight on this quote: “If an engine managed to explode in a fireball, it’s mostly likely going to take the whole plane out” Simply not true. An engine failure, even an explosive, uncontained high-speed turbine failure like this one, is extremely unlikely to “take the whole plane out”. The aircraft has two engines for exactly this reason — lose one, keep flying.

There are numerous safety systems built into the design of the aircraft, the engines and the attachment point of the engine to the airplane (the pylon) that prevent this. Modern jet engines are some of the most reliable devices ever built, but they are mechanical systems and still occasionally fail, sometimes in spectacular fashion, but they almost never blow-up like a bomb and destroy an entire aircraft.

To impugn SWA maintenance for this incident is also extremely premature. The investigation will probably find the root cause of the blade failure, but without any facts it’s irresponsible to say “it doesn’t speak well for Southwest’s maintenance crew.” Sometimes things just break, so let’s wait for the facts before casting judgment.

As for the details of Southwest “lying” about what actually happened, you folks need to understand how aviation mishap reporting systems work. Most systems (including the one the USAF uses, with which I’m intimately familiar) include a data field for the phase of flight in which the mishap occurred.

The FAA system may lump takeoff in with “departure”, the portion of the flight immediately after takeoff until the aircraft reaches cruise altitude. This is also a “preliminary report” — someone’s best guess what happened immediately after it happened, before an investigation is completed, before all the facts are in, and minor errors like the phase of flight, if it is an error, are not uncommon early on.

The narrative from the report also says “on departure experienced a vibration in the number 2 engine” so the assumption that SWA is lying about when it happened is just silly. At worst it could be a clerical error, not some attempt to deceive. Does it really matter when the engine came apart? The note below this report also says “Source: FAA - Correctness not guaranteed, completeness not intended” — that’s “FAA” not “SWA”, so be careful when you start throwing around charges of “covering their asses…” [Alan].

Commenter Joe also said “there was no vidration [sic]”, a reference to the report stating the aircraft “experienced a vibration in the number 2 engine.” Based on where Joe was sitting he may not have felt any, but up in the cockpit I’ll bet you the pilots felt some pretty hefty vibrations as the engine came apart.

This has to do with the dynamics of structural vibration — bending modes, nodes, propagation, etc. — basically, there are points in the aircraft where the vibratory waves cancel each other out and can’t be felt or multiply so they are very noticeable. Where Joe sat he may not have felt any vibrations, but the pilots most likely did.

Realize also that the pilots probably had numerous other indications of a problem, from gauges showing out-of-limit or fluctuating readings to warning lights and horns. Some aircraft even have indicators that precisely show engine vibrations though I doubt a modern 737 has these.

So, bottom line, for the pilots to say there were “vibrations” isn’t a lie. There’s not an “engine exploded” light in the cockpit, and the safety report describes the indications the PILOTS had, not what the non-aviator passenger thinks they saw and felt.

Lastly, if the flight attendants were crying and hyperventilating they need to be counseled for a lack of professional discipline. The aircraft had a fairly major problem but the cockpit crew were handling it in accordance with the flght manual and company procedures. Flight attendants are trained to remain calm so they can actually peform their duties, assist the pilots as necessary and take care of the passengers. If they were getting hysterical it sounds like there may have been a breakdown in discipline.

One thing I would like to know from someone who was actually on the aircraft: Did the Captain or First Officer walk back into the cabin inflight and look at the engine to survey the damage?

I hope this clears up many of the misconceptions and conjecture that this incident has generated. No, I’m not a pilot for SWA, though I think they are a very good airline. I am a USAF test pilot and have dozens of friends who fly for Southwest, and to the man they are some of the best, most professional aviators I’ve ever known.

Kudos to the two guys who got this jet back on the ground safely despite the “fatal engine failure”, tearful goodbyes and hyperventilating stewardesses.

I’m with you on that, buddy. I did a double take there, too, but then went back and read the post. But you missed the point. The pilot took the photos. The original poster asked the pilot to submit them so he could publish them, but other photos showed up online first.

Airliners are amazingly redundant things, and the pilots have oxygen masks readily available for just such an emergency.

take a look at a similar (albeit older) 737 that survived a BIT of hole at 24k ft and made a safe landing (albeit with a few fewer people on board)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243

Also in the case of the PNS engine failure (a DL MD-88) the cause was shoddy work on the blades done by a contractor overseas (pakistan?)

The wings (with engines) act as a fulcrum in flight, much like the
middle of a see-saw.

People at the front and back of the plane will feel movement more acutely
than people near the wings — just as you would sitting in the middle
of a see-saw.

Also, like ripples in a pond when you drop a stone, vibrations move outward,
and are felt greater at the ends.

Markus Diersbock

1) Boeing airliners are designed so that flight critical systems are not inline with the turbine blades. So, turbine blades flying out will not take out critical systems.

2) Turbine blades penetrating the fuselage will not cause explosive decompression. The pressurized cabin will not fail like a balloon does when punctured, Boeing has spent a great deal of effort prevent this problem. You’ll probably hear a loud hissing sound and get a gradual decompression, and that’s it.

3) Jet engines are highly stressed and full of energy. Thus, Boeing airliners are designed with the presumption that they will fail, so the plane must continue to fly safely. That’s why there are two engines, and why they are on pylons, and why critical flight controls are not in the way of engine failure, etc.

4) This incident shows how well Boeing airliners are built, and the professionalism of the pilots. The airframe handled the mishap gracefully, continued to fly successfully, and the pilots did everything right and brought the airplane down safely with no injury or loss of life.

When you take pictures, you do not ASK PERMISSION to publish them.

That is what people do in mainland China. Not here in the US. In the US, we are a free country. You publish your pictures first, and let the FAA ask questions later. Not the other way around.”

Who cares? I would take pictures THEN publish them. Big deal! pfffttt

By this federal regulation, the engine performed properly. It contained the damage, did not catch fire and obviously remained mounted.

People like jetguru are grossly ignorant about what the capabilities of an airliner are. Their prognostications about the plane “going down” are simply incorrect.

For starters, the issues regarding the initial statement are simply incorrect. The statement linked is an FAA document stating only the basic event items. Plane departed, engine failed, plane returned. That is called an “incident report” and is simply a concise statement of what occured.To cast aspersions on Southwest for “trying to cover things up” is just plain stupid. In this litigious society, booger eating morons are regularly courted by shady attorneys who want to creat issues upon which to make money. This completely ignores the fact that the SWA crew did the right things and saved the day. I believe if you do some checking, SWA sends their engines off for repair/overhaul to FAA approved engine facilities. Blaming SWA simply flies in the face of reality.

As for decompression, Boeing has over-engineered every plane since the 707. When the 707 was being tested, they shot scores of steel daggers through the hull of a fully pressurized 707 immersed in a huge pool to demonstrate the failsafe nature of the airframe structure (dual loadpaths, just like a WWII bomber). The 737 is nearly identical to the 707 airframe and, in fact, still flies with the 707 nose that first flew nearly 60 years ago. Look at a KC-135 tanker nose if you don’t believe me. Identical, except the radome.

To the credit of those who stated the obvious, an airliner is comprised of over a million parts, many of them under extremely high pressure. The engines typify this stress and the fan hub/compressor core takes the brunt of this stress. For the record, the initial failure appears to have been a fan failure, not the turbine section. (Notice in one of the pictures the entire fan and spinner are gone.) The fan is like the propeller and pulls the plane through the air. A fan failure is often followed by a compressor/turbine hot section failure as parts from the fan section are ingested into the engine taking out compressor blades and turbine blades until the engine is either damaged partially or rendered completely inoperative. That is why every airliner comes with at least another engine. One breaks, you go land and get another jet.

As for the flight attendant tears, please remember that they are people too. Some of them may have been on their first trip or first month of flying. Despite being air crew, they often have little understanding of airworthiness issues other than what they learn on the job over time. Their prime reason for being is to get your butt safely off the plane once it touches down. They have been well trained to do this and their training has been well documented time and again. In the seconds after an inflight event, the pilots are busy trying to ascertain what/where/why and trying to make sense of the instruments on the dash before them. To make matters worse, in a vibration event, often times it is very hard to read the instruments so drawing any quick conclusions is out of the question. The “prime directive” in aviation is “DO NOT ACT WITHOUT DELIBERATION BECAUSE IT MAY WORSEN YOUR SITUATION.” While these pilots were trying to figure out what was going on, the flight attendants were on their own, awaiting info from the cockpit. If the passengers demand attention for their fear of imminent peril, the same consideration must be offered to the inflight crewmembers. A badge doesn’t mean you are not human as well.

The facts speak for themselves. An unintended and possibly unavoidable incident occurred inflight. The company trained crewmembers did their job and recovered the aircraft safely to the ground and all passemgers were safely deplaned. What other outcome is preferable to this outcome?

Additional note: I believe this aircraft was a 300 model. Only the “Classic” 737’s have engine vibration indicators and in this type event, the severity of vibration on the failed engine may have pegged the opposing indicator. (The NG 737’s have no vibe indicators.)

Engine failure in high-bypass turbo fans is incredibly rare when measured across the millions of hours jets fly each year. Uncontained engine failure is many magnitudes rarer yet. This track record is testimony to the safety and reliability offered by airline travel.

The Internet is a wonderful place to get information. Unfortunately, in the absence of factual data, mob rule often occurs. Hopefully, the readers of this blog are now more educated as to the events that occurred.

If no one died, why did the post call it a “fatal engine failure”? Was there any fatality?

– Arik

Airliner engines are most certainly “armoured” against potential blade failures. Should any blade in the engine fail and break off, the casing of the engine is specifically designed to safely contain the huge amount of energy released and prevent any debris from hitting the fuselage or wing.

This video demonstrates blade-off testing for the A380’s engines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA

why not do it?

Care to comment on the time of useful consciousness in rapid decompression, let me help you here… It would be as little as six seconds at altitude.

She should have and seems that she did strap on the oxygen tank. In a situation such as this, better to error on the side of caution. I know that I would not want to be without oxygen in a rapid decompression, for if I was, all the passengers would have much more to worry about than grammar and spelling errors.

Generally, your post was spot on and seemingly professionally sound, you just lost my vote with your careless use of the outdated word, “stewardess” and your uninformed assumption that the flight attendants would be fired.

Typical after the fact, arm chair quarterbacking at its best.

JetGuru is completely wrong when he speculates of all the ways the airplane would have broken apart, become uncontrollable, crashed, etc. I can’t imagine what his motivation is.

Testpilot and the Ex-Boeing engineer have it completely correct. Let’s review the systems and design features in place to protect the passengers in the event of an engine problem.

First - the airplane is designed to fly on one engine, maintain cabin pressurization with only one engine operating, and provide adequate electrical and hydraulic power with only one engine operating. There’s also an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), a small jet engine in the back of the airplane that can be operated to provide additional electrical and bleed air energy. The worst case is that a fully loaded 737 might have to descend somewhat from it’s normal cruise altitude of 33000-41000 feet when operating on a single engine, but you can believe that for any domestic operation an engine failure calls for a descent and landing at the nearest suitable airport anyway.

Second - There are no critical flight components in the ejection plane of the engine fan or compressor stages. This ensures that if a blade separates, and the energy is not fully contained within the kevlar belts lining the cowling and the cowling itself, that any penetration of the wing structure or fuselage (I believe the fuse does have some additional kevlar in it) will be minor and absorbable, and leave the airplane fully controllable. Additionally, the pylons the engine is mounted on are designed to protect the wing by failing first and separating the engine from the wing if sufficient stress is placed on them.

Third - You may not be aware that an pressurized airplane is not actually completely sealed. Pressurized Air (called bleed air)from the engines is pumped into the aircraft after being cooled, and it flows out through an adjustable outflow valve in the fuselage. The pressurization comes from the difference in the amount of air pumped in (lots) and the amount of air allowed to exit through the outflow (less, but NOT zero). If the cabin were to spring a small leak (say the size of your fist), the outflow valve would simply close a bit to compensate, and it would be noisy by the hole, but pressure would probably still be adequate to not require supplemental oxygen. Only if structural maintenance were terribly deficient (as in the case of ?Aloha?) would there be a chance of significant skin loss and depressurization, and even in that case the airplane landed safely.

Bottom line, an engine failure of this type is something the designers anticipated, designed for, TESTED their designs, and the FAA certified the design as being safe. You have a better chance of winning the lottery then you do of dying in a plane crash due to a design defect in the aircraft or engine. Most plane crashes are a result of pilot error (sad but true), or in rare cases terribly gross negligence on the part of the maintenance staff or ATC, or deliberate sabotage/terrorism.

testpilot2: This particular aircraft was a -300 - no dice on the vibration indicator unless they were available on the earlier models.

It absolutely cracks me up to come in here and read all of these comments from people that know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about aircraft! Thanks for providing me some entertainment this evening. (Obviously that wasn’t directed at the last few folks that have posted and actually know what they are taking about!)

Matt
My photos on Airliners.net: http://tinyurl.com/u4vro

–

If I’m correct, our 300 and 500 series also have the vibration gauge. I think it’s located where the N1, N2, and the oil temp gauges are right directly in front of the throttles on the panel under the dash…Boeing am I correct? and for the civilians out there that thinks I’m a fool because I dont know where something is in the cockpit..it is because I work in Ground Operations, but possess a Private Pilots Certificate. Also…this armor plating you guys talk about..is really not what you think..its not metal…its Kevlar.. and theres alot of it in the engine where the blades turn. when you see a plane land and they engage the Thrust Reverser’s, you can see a green color inside the cowling….thats all Kevlar. There was a program on the Discovery Channel on a/c engines and they had an engine intentionally lose the blades and all you saw was the cowling bow up like a flexed bicep…it was really neat…Boeing or Test can you vouch?

Additional note: Once the NTSB gets the incident, SWA CANNOT make any comments about the incident. The NTSB makes ALL statements about what did and didn’t happen. Their comments will come as the investigation continues. The holidays throw a wrench in the usual timing but, assuming they have a good idea and testing verifies the damage pattern, we should have some official report out in 60-90 days.

There was no “cover up” and I am certain that if you dig through the FAA web site you will find the actual report that details both what the pilots thought was happening and the report from the ground that lists the actual damage.

Get a grip people.”"”

Thank you, Evgen. I was hoping someone with a brain would post a reply. It is quite obvious that the F/A’s were the only ones who screwed up… the pilots safely got the plane on the ground as trained. Hopefully Herb will give them a fat Christmas Bonus.

Southwest has one of the best MX crew in the world, but sometimes you just can’t tell when things like this will happen. When they do, you just have to count on a good Boeing airframe to get you down in one piece.

Turbofans are a very complex (and beautifully engineered) piece of equipment, and are designed with saftey in mind. The reason none of the blades passed through the inner wall is because a layer of protective ‘armor’ (designed specifically for this purpose) is placed between the moving engine parts and the passenger cabin.

I would certainly say it was not a birdstrike, as most commercial turbofans are required to ’swallow’ a large bird in testing without a major failure.

2. The pilots of this aircraft were fully busy flying the airplane on a single engine and did not need to leave the cockpit in flight to see the damage as (1) there was nothing they could do to fix it at that point and (2) they had SWA pilots in the cabin giving them reports about what they saw.

3. Early FAA reports are nearly always a broad stroke description meant only to start the reporting process, you can be sure the final document will include full details of the failure and an accurate description of the event. This is IN no way a cover up of anything.

4. Blaming this on SWA maintenance is extremely premature. Losing and engine blade is actually a very common event but it is true that having the blade come through the casing is rare. Why this all happened is yet to be determined.

There was no “cover up” and I am certain that if you dig through the FAA web site you will find the actual report that details both what the pilots thought was happening and the report from the ground that lists the actual damage.

Get a grip people.
————————————————————————–
Well said Evgen, well said

And for the handful of you that followed with your redundant attempts at explaining what really happened, you were only successful in displaying your “Let me show you how smart I am” mentality.

And to “Future 737 pilot”, what did you possibly think you could add to TestPilot’s very detailed and highly accurate synopsis? Considering that you’re only studying to become 737 rated you’re not exactly what we would consider a “qualified expert”. You sound like you’re going to be a know-it-all, but right now you’re J.A.F.O.

Contrary to popular belief, people don’t read these posts for all the drama. But rather they usually end up here after googling for information to satisfy their questions about a particular incident or safety related information. So let’s try to keep it on point and cut out all the BS. (yes, mine included!)

Thanks and be sure and let me know if I misspelled any words.

-No trees were killed in the posting of this message. However, a great many electrons were inconvenienced.