← Back to Squawk list
Southwest Airlines protested airworthiness directive designed to prevent engine failuresWhile 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. (arstechnica.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Under the AD, engines with over 15,000 cycles since their last shop visit would have had to inspected within 6 months, and engines with fewer than 15,000 cycles would have had 18 months to be inspected. At the time of the accident, this engine had 10,000 cycles on it. It probably wouldn't have mattered.
"SWA does NOT support the CFM comment on reducing compliance time to 12 months. SWA estimates there are 732 engines in the SWA population. Compliance time of 18 months will be needed to schedule and complete the required ultrasonic inspections. CFM's risk assessment... did not take credit for the number of fan blades already inspected in the fleet and the findings rate. SWA requests this risk assessment be updated to make a more data-informed AD mandated compliance time."
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
Ok so you posted what the article that this is linked to for what reason?
I just looked at all recent quotes, wow you are one condescending person. I remember you. why don't you just relax and TRY to be less condescending to others. have a nice day
Too many wrong statements for me to put any faith in this article. #1 is that this was an uncontained engine failure. No, this was an uncontained cowling failure. The last sentence is the most correct. "But investigators have not yet determined the exact cause."
What ever happened to the concept of "passenger and crew safety first"?