5 ms·

> The engines are designed so that a detached fan blade stays contained within the cowling. Yes, but uncontained failures can and do happen. Qantas Flight 32 i

> The engines are designed so that a detached fan blade stays contained within the cowling. Yes, but uncontained failures can and do happen. Qantas Flight 32 is an example of an uncontained engine failure on an A380, though with a Rolls Royce engine instead of Engine Alliance (GE + P&W). [0] I do think they're very lucky that this uncontained engine failure didn't cause more damage. QF32 was heavily damaged by debris coming out of the engine, so the fact that this seems to be relatively contained to the engine itself is fortunate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

gmueckl 9y ago
As far as I have picked up on that subject, passenger aircraft have multiple layers of protection against blades separating from the engine. The cowling is supposed to contain it. If that does not work, the fuselage in the area of the wings is hardened to prevent the separating part(s) from entering the passenger compartment and doing damage there. This is typically implemented using a Kevlar lining on the hull. The Quantas flight is remarkable in that engine parts were not contained successfully and managed to damage critical systems inside the wing not related to the engine itself. Some reports say that the flight crew was overwhelmed by over 50 individual failure reports resulting from this damage. I was actually quite surprised when I learned that it was so easy to damage that many major systems with a seemingly small puncture in a wing.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Keep in mind that the Quantas failure, while horrible, resulted in zero fatalities.
  - bdamm 9y ago
    Very remarkable indeed, considering the damage to the landing gear, flaps, fuel tanks, and engine controls. The airplane at the time it landed was way out into the experimental flying zone. When people talk of pilot-less airliners I have to think of incidents like this. Pilots do make mistakes and people die as a result, but when equipment fails and nobody dies because a pilot does what is needed to land safely despite the issue, it rarely makes news. Sometimes people on board don't even know.
    - justinjlynn 9y ago
      > Sometimes people on board don't even know. That's the ideal general case. You really don't want hundreds of panicked people trapped in a broken tin can thousands of feet above ground while you're trying to handle the situation.
      - FabHK 9y ago
        At least you (as a pilot) are behind a solid locked door in that scenario. However, that brings up another question I've been wondering about: Could the pax/cabin crew of an airplane collaborate in bringing a jet down, by e.g. all together going to the very front of the plane (near the cockpit door), moving the trim up, then all running to the very end of the plane, bringing it into an uncontrollable stall? I haven't really seen a satisfactory answer to that question. See Quora and Stackexchange (where I attempted an answer): https://www.quora.com/Would-a-passenger-jet-stall-if-all-the-passengers-rushed-to-the-back-of-the-aircraft https://www.quora.com/Would-a-passenger-jet-stall-if-all-the... https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2507/can-passenger-movement-in-an-airliner-make-it-stall/37661#37661 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2507/can-passen...
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Whislt technically correct (the best kind), attributing this to adequate engineering given scope of damage is difficult. I've reviewed this incident myself several times -- not a statement of my qualifications (nil), only familiarity -- and tremendous credit must be given the flight crew which included the presence of a check team (there were five pilots in the cockpit). One engine failed completely, two others were seriously degraded, aircraft control was minimal, fuel could not be dumped (leading to an overweight laading). The impression from one documentary was that the first officer spent much of his time overwhelmed with system reports which had to be cleared from his displays. Systems and information design and flows seem a net negative for this incident -- there is such a thing as too much information. Overall, many reserve margins were exceedingly tight. Your comment seems to me to grossly understate the severity, and overly credit Airbus and Rolls Royce, in this case
FabHK 9y ago
I'm fairly sure there are many other things that'll kill me first (hello, lack of exercise), but I do wonder where a detached turbine blade might cut through the fuselage and any passengers contained therein, and thus try to avoid the rows parallel to the engine. However, I'm wondering - would the blade go straight lateral? Or, relieved from having to pull the whole damn plane forward, would it fly forward and hit the fuselage in front of the engine? Or, slowed down by the air resistance, would it hit the fuselage behind the engine? Best, I suppose, to sit up front in first class...
- WalterBright 9y ago
  The blades will come out radially. If you're concerned about which seats are safer, the ones in steerage in the back are the safest. They tend to arrive last at the scene of the accident :-) Good shoes can save your life, because you can walk out over hot, burning wreckage. Wear cotton, not synthetic, clothes, and you'll have less severe burn injuries. And, of course, pay attention to where the exits are and the flight crew's safety instructions. They really do know what they're talking about, and they're well trained.
  - FabHK 9y ago
    Oh, I never take off my shoes until a few thousand ft AGL - I figure at that point it doesn't matter much anymore :-) > They really do know what they're talking about, and they're well trained. I wonder, btw, whether people on Saudia 163 would have survived if they had stormed the emergency exits after landing against (presumably) the orders of the crew... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163

gmueckl 9y ago

As far as I have picked up on that subject, passenger aircraft have multiple layers of protection against blades separating from the engine. The cowling is supposed to contain it. If that does not work, the fuselage in the area of the wings is hardened to prevent the separating part(s) from entering the passenger compartment and doing damage there. This is typically implemented using a Kevlar lining on the hull. The Quantas flight is remarkable in that engine parts were not contained successfully and managed to damage critical systems inside the wing not related to the engine itself. Some reports say that the flight crew was overwhelmed by over 50 individual failure reports resulting from this damage. I was actually quite surprised when I learned that it was so easy to damage that many major systems with a seemingly small puncture in a wing.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Keep in mind that the Quantas failure, while horrible, resulted in zero fatalities.
- bdamm 9y ago
  Very remarkable indeed, considering the damage to the landing gear, flaps, fuel tanks, and engine controls. The airplane at the time it landed was way out into the experimental flying zone. When people talk of pilot-less airliners I have to think of incidents like this. Pilots do make mistakes and people die as a result, but when equipment fails and nobody dies because a pilot does what is needed to land safely despite the issue, it rarely makes news. Sometimes people on board don't even know.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    > Sometimes people on board don't even know. That's the ideal general case. You really don't want hundreds of panicked people trapped in a broken tin can thousands of feet above ground while you're trying to handle the situation.
    - FabHK 9y ago
      At least you (as a pilot) are behind a solid locked door in that scenario. However, that brings up another question I've been wondering about: Could the pax/cabin crew of an airplane collaborate in bringing a jet down, by e.g. all together going to the very front of the plane (near the cockpit door), moving the trim up, then all running to the very end of the plane, bringing it into an uncontrollable stall? I haven't really seen a satisfactory answer to that question. See Quora and Stackexchange (where I attempted an answer): https://www.quora.com/Would-a-passenger-jet-stall-if-all-the-passengers-rushed-to-the-back-of-the-aircraft https://www.quora.com/Would-a-passenger-jet-stall-if-all-the... https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2507/can-passenger-movement-in-an-airliner-make-it-stall/37661#37661 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2507/can-passen...
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Whislt technically correct (the best kind), attributing this to adequate engineering given scope of damage is difficult. I've reviewed this incident myself several times -- not a statement of my qualifications (nil), only familiarity -- and tremendous credit must be given the flight crew which included the presence of a check team (there were five pilots in the cockpit). One engine failed completely, two others were seriously degraded, aircraft control was minimal, fuel could not be dumped (leading to an overweight laading). The impression from one documentary was that the first officer spent much of his time overwhelmed with system reports which had to be cleared from his displays. Systems and information design and flows seem a net negative for this incident -- there is such a thing as too much information. Overall, many reserve margins were exceedingly tight. Your comment seems to me to grossly understate the severity, and overly credit Airbus and Rolls Royce, in this case

FabHK 9y ago

I'm fairly sure there are many other things that'll kill me first (hello, lack of exercise), but I do wonder where a detached turbine blade might cut through the fuselage and any passengers contained therein, and thus try to avoid the rows parallel to the engine. However, I'm wondering - would the blade go straight lateral? Or, relieved from having to pull the whole damn plane forward, would it fly forward and hit the fuselage in front of the engine? Or, slowed down by the air resistance, would it hit the fuselage behind the engine? Best, I suppose, to sit up front in first class...

WalterBright 9y ago
The blades will come out radially. If you're concerned about which seats are safer, the ones in steerage in the back are the safest. They tend to arrive last at the scene of the accident :-) Good shoes can save your life, because you can walk out over hot, burning wreckage. Wear cotton, not synthetic, clothes, and you'll have less severe burn injuries. And, of course, pay attention to where the exits are and the flight crew's safety instructions. They really do know what they're talking about, and they're well trained.
- FabHK 9y ago
  Oh, I never take off my shoes until a few thousand ft AGL - I figure at that point it doesn't matter much anymore :-) > They really do know what they're talking about, and they're well trained. I wonder, btw, whether people on Saudia 163 would have survived if they had stormed the emergency exits after landing against (presumably) the orders of the crew... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163