Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Fatal Southwest Accident Puts Focus on Widely Used Engine
Fatal Southwest Accident Puts Focus on Widely Used Engine
Failure of CFM engine is set to spur more scrutiny across fleets around the globe
By Robert Wall and Doug Cameron
https://twitter.com/R_Wall
robert.wall@wsj.com
https://twitter.com/dougcameron
Doug.Cameron@dowjones.com
April 18, 2018 8:14 a.m. ET
The engine failure that killed a passenger aboard a Southwest Airlines Co. flight puts the spotlight on one of the industry’s most commonly used engines. ... CFM International—a joint venture between General Electric Co. and France’s Safran SA—makes engines that have become a mainstay of commercial aviation. The engines power most of Boeing Co. and Airbus SE’s single-aisle planes, the workhorses of the industry.
On Tuesday, one of two CFM56-7B engines ruptured on a Boeing 737-700 operated by Southwest. The engine broke apart while the plane was at cruising altitude, flying from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Dallas Love Field, with 149 passengers and crew aboard. Metal pieces struck the fuselage, though the details of what happened inside the cabin are still unclear.
Southwest two years ago suffered a similar failure on another CFM56 engine, forcing the plane to land but not resulting in injuries. ... A probe of that incident showed evidence of fatigue cracks in some of the blades. In response, the Federal Aviation Administration last year proposed enhanced inspections of certain CFM engines. It hasn’t yet made the safety fix mandatory. The National Transportation and Safety Board said it would examine whether there were any common factors connecting the two CFM56 incidents at Southwest. ... The airline, meanwhile, said late Tuesday it was stepping up inspections of the CFM56s used in its fleet. CFM International said it was sending a team of experts to aid the NTSB probe.
The widespread use of the engine and its unusually dramatic failure are likely to spur more scrutiny across fleets around the globe. European air-safety regulators said Wednesday they were “assessing the situation” and working with U.S. counterparts. ... On average, a CFM56-powered plane takes off somewhere in the world every two seconds. The CFM56-7B version involved in Tuesday’s incident has been in service since 1997 and is used in more than 6,700 airliners.
....
Write to Robert Wall at robert.wall@wsj.com and Doug Cameron at doug.cameron@wsj.com
Failure of CFM engine is set to spur more scrutiny across fleets around the globe
By Robert Wall and Doug Cameron
https://twitter.com/R_Wall
robert.wall@wsj.com
https://twitter.com/dougcameron
Doug.Cameron@dowjones.com
April 18, 2018 8:14 a.m. ET
The engine failure that killed a passenger aboard a Southwest Airlines Co. flight puts the spotlight on one of the industry’s most commonly used engines. ... CFM International—a joint venture between General Electric Co. and France’s Safran SA—makes engines that have become a mainstay of commercial aviation. The engines power most of Boeing Co. and Airbus SE’s single-aisle planes, the workhorses of the industry.
On Tuesday, one of two CFM56-7B engines ruptured on a Boeing 737-700 operated by Southwest. The engine broke apart while the plane was at cruising altitude, flying from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Dallas Love Field, with 149 passengers and crew aboard. Metal pieces struck the fuselage, though the details of what happened inside the cabin are still unclear.
Southwest two years ago suffered a similar failure on another CFM56 engine, forcing the plane to land but not resulting in injuries. ... A probe of that incident showed evidence of fatigue cracks in some of the blades. In response, the Federal Aviation Administration last year proposed enhanced inspections of certain CFM engines. It hasn’t yet made the safety fix mandatory. The National Transportation and Safety Board said it would examine whether there were any common factors connecting the two CFM56 incidents at Southwest. ... The airline, meanwhile, said late Tuesday it was stepping up inspections of the CFM56s used in its fleet. CFM International said it was sending a team of experts to aid the NTSB probe.
The widespread use of the engine and its unusually dramatic failure are likely to spur more scrutiny across fleets around the globe. European air-safety regulators said Wednesday they were “assessing the situation” and working with U.S. counterparts. ... On average, a CFM56-powered plane takes off somewhere in the world every two seconds. The CFM56-7B version involved in Tuesday’s incident has been in service since 1997 and is used in more than 6,700 airliners.
....
Write to Robert Wall at robert.wall@wsj.com and Doug Cameron at doug.cameron@wsj.com
Good stuff here.
Link to tweet
18 Apr
After SWA 1380, is it time for deep human factors study of emergencies?
By Marisa Garcia
Images from inside the cabin of Southwest Airlines flight 1380, which made an emergency landing in Philadelphia following an engine failure, raise questions again about passengers’ comprehension of basic cabin emergency procedures and about passenger priorities during those rare times when their lives are at risk.
Passenger recordings from on board the plane show a number of passengers – including the person recording the video – holding their oxygen masks over their mouths, rather than stretching the oxygen masks to cover their nose and mouth completely, then tightening the elastic bands to keep the oxygen masks in place.
Regulations require that oxygen masks be fully reversible to ensure that, in a panic, people can put them on quickly. For this reason, the silicone cups that serve as a mask are perfectly round when first deployed. But these soft silicone masks are moldable to fit the face like a duck’s bill. They are flexible, adjusting to cover the nose and mouth tightly, to ensure the uninterrupted flow of oxygen. They are intended to be one-size-fits all, adapting to adults of all sizes, as well as children. Their conical shape allows for this variation in sizing. Like all cabin safety equipment, their proper use is intended to be relatively intuitive.
So how is it possible that a number of passengers on board wore the masks loosely so that they would have done an ineffective job of delivering oxygen, and could not have isolated any smoke or toxins from within the cabin had there been any?
After SWA 1380, is it time for deep human factors study of emergencies?
By Marisa Garcia
Images from inside the cabin of Southwest Airlines flight 1380, which made an emergency landing in Philadelphia following an engine failure, raise questions again about passengers’ comprehension of basic cabin emergency procedures and about passenger priorities during those rare times when their lives are at risk.
Passenger recordings from on board the plane show a number of passengers – including the person recording the video – holding their oxygen masks over their mouths, rather than stretching the oxygen masks to cover their nose and mouth completely, then tightening the elastic bands to keep the oxygen masks in place.
Regulations require that oxygen masks be fully reversible to ensure that, in a panic, people can put them on quickly. For this reason, the silicone cups that serve as a mask are perfectly round when first deployed. But these soft silicone masks are moldable to fit the face like a duck’s bill. They are flexible, adjusting to cover the nose and mouth tightly, to ensure the uninterrupted flow of oxygen. They are intended to be one-size-fits all, adapting to adults of all sizes, as well as children. Their conical shape allows for this variation in sizing. Like all cabin safety equipment, their proper use is intended to be relatively intuitive.
So how is it possible that a number of passengers on board wore the masks loosely so that they would have done an ineffective job of delivering oxygen, and could not have isolated any smoke or toxins from within the cabin had there been any?
Link to tweet
