Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3 4 5
View raw article or MIME structure
On 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) caused to appear as if it was written: >In article <airliners.1997.2418@ohare.Chicago.COM>, >Malcolm Weir <email@example.com> wrote: >>The point was, while all in-flight shutdowns are serious, possibly the most >>serious type of event involves fan blade failures... It's bad enough to >>lose an engine without bits of the engine whizzing around the rest of the >>airframe (c.f. Sioux City...) >Malcolm, I think you know that the Sioux City accident was not due to >a fan-blade failure. It was due to a rotor-disk failure. All engines >do have to go through a fan-blade-failure test just like they have to >go through birdstrike tests (but not a rotor-disk-failure test). In >most cases, a fan-blade failure should not cause a catastrophic failure >of the engine. Yes, I am aware that UA232's accident was caused by a rotor-disk failure. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that the point was that having bits of engine part company with the rest of it is more significantly more serious than lubrication problems. An extreme example of that point was Sioux City.... compared with the Eastern L1011 that lost all lubrication on all engines... It is obvious that uncontained failures are more serious than contained failures, and that *neither* should happen. But both do. Didn't P&W have "concerns" about fan containment with those engines, anyway? Malc.