4 ms·
Which, to pinpoint the insanity of the FAA, the failure seen over denver actually involved an uncontained blade exiting the engine, something it was clearly no
by agloeregrets 6y ago
Which, to pinpoint the insanity of the FAA, the failure seen over denver actually involved an uncontained blade exiting the engine, something it was clearly not designed to allow to happen. It's a mess.
- ak217 6y agoBut the engine did contain the failure. No pieces of the engine caused any functional damage to the rest of the aircraft. The housing is designed to prevent shrapnel damage, not to prevent stuff from falling out altogether. What's insane about the FAA's approach? They are ordering immediate inspections of all fan blades in these engines for cracks like the one that apparently brought this one down.
- mzs 6y agoThere certainly was shrapnel damage to the plane. http://avherald.com/img/united_b772_n772ua_denver_210220_8.jpg http://avherald.com/img/united_b772_n772ua_denver_210220_8.j...
- ADent 6y agoNot fully contained. See https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/1363793475947356161 https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/136379347594735616... for damage to wing to body fairing.
- kayfox 6y agoContained vs uncontained turbine failures relate to the damage from the blades being contained, which in this case they were. Contained failures still result in engine parts exiting the engine, but not through the engine case, which is reinforced to contain the turbine blades in a failure. The unexpected issue here is that the cowling was knocked off, which is not supposed to happen, but in recent years it seems to be happening.
- agloeregrets 6y agoIt was not contained. A blade went though the lower wing root. https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/1363793475947356161 https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/136379347594735616...