One would think that there is a better engineering solution to prevent such future tragedies, say, better shatter proof glass.

Of course, officially, Southwest wants to pray.

(April 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: One would think that there is a better engineering solution to prevent such future tragedies, say, better shatter proof glass.

Of course, officially, Southwest wants to pray.

transparency for all windows truly proof against fragments from major engine failure would be misplaced emphasis because the fuselage wall is much larger, much more likely to be struck, and is far from proof against penetration.   You can punch through airliner skin with a determined application of a screw driver.  Moreover the  plane won't get off the ground if the skin around the entire passenger cabin, as well as critical structure, control and fuel tanks are really made proof against engine failure.

Engine casing can be and are reinforced to contain some types of failure, but obviously not all.

Life is cruel. In other news, water wet.

I'm assuming a 'cruise' power setting for the engine, not a full throttle period like during takeoff or a go around, and find the uncontained failure even more disconcerting. News reports are mentioning fatigue failure. There will be individual manufacturing records for all the parts on the engine, they will all be examined.

(April 18, 2018 at 4:50 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I'm assuming a 'cruise' power setting for the engine, not a full throttle period like during takeoff or a go around, and find the uncontained failure even more disconcerting.  News reports are mentioning fatigue failure.  There will be individual manufacturing records for all the parts on the engine, they will all be examined.

I am not sure if a contained failure In this case would be better than an uncontained failure.  If the failure of the fan blade is contained, then the remains of the blade would have a high chance of being ingested by the engine.   Sending a big chunk of a fan blade into the compressor and hot section would totally trash the rest of the engine, cause multiple disintegrations of rotating material in the compressor and hot section and fire and explosions.  Uncontained failure simply throws the failed blade out of the engine, leaving the rest of the engine intact and give the engine management system chance to shut down the now unbalanced rotating mass.

It seems to me containment is only desirable if it is the failure occurs in the hot section.  In that case the hot section is ruined already and mayhem there is unavoidable,  so then you would want to try and contain the failure as much as possible, and reduce the effect of any fire and explosion there.

(April 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: One would think that there is a better engineering solution to prevent such future tragedies, say, better shatter proof glass.

Of course, officially, Southwest wants to pray.

When you look at the numbers, number of engines that exist, number of hours they spend in flight, number of fan blade failures they experience, you realize the current level of engineering is more than adequate to insure excellent levels of public safety. You probably have a better chance of being crushed by a meteor while also being bit by a shark than you have of being killed as a result of turbine engine fan blade failure.

(April 18, 2018 at 5:24 pm)johan Wrote:

(April 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: One would think that there is a better engineering solution to prevent such future tragedies, say, better shatter proof glass.

Of course, officially, Southwest wants to pray.

When you look at the numbers, number of engines that exist, number of hours they spend in flight, number of fan blade failures they experience, you realize the current level of engineering is more than adequate to insure excellent levels of public safety. You probably have a better chance of being crushed by a meteor while also being bit by a shark than you have of being killed as a result of turbine engine fan blade failure.

Using the consequentialist approach, one evaluates how many lives are statistically likely to be saved by strengthening planes against the consequences of a comparatively rare form of failure, and weigh that against how many more lives would likely to be lost because the cost of such enhancement, when passed onto the passengers, will cause some of them to forgo airline travel but adopt another way to travel, all of which are statistically more dangerous to life and limb than airline travel.

You don’t want to invest so much in airline safety that you price airline travel out of reach for more people and drive enough of them to getting hit by cars to offset any safety you gain with airplanes.

The post-tragedy photos of the window have nasty shards still embedded in the frame. I wonder this woman died of blood loss?

(April 18, 2018 at 5:24 pm)johan Wrote:

(April 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: One would think that there is a better engineering solution to prevent such future tragedies, say, better shatter proof glass.

Of course, officially, Southwest wants to pray.

When you look at the numbers, number of engines that exist, number of hours they spend in flight, number of fan blade failures they experience, you realize the current level of engineering is more than adequate to insure excellent levels of public safety. You probably have a better chance of being crushed by a meteor while also being bit by a shark than you have of being killed as a result of turbine engine fan blade failure.

Oh, I agree, but then again, if it is possible to make air travel even safer, why not?

(April 18, 2018 at 11:54 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 18, 2018 at 11:02 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: She wasn’t quit sucked out.  She was half way out, but her fellow passengers managed to hold on to her for several minutes and then eventually pulled her back in. It’s not clear whether her fatal injuries were inflicted by the fragments from the disintegrating engine breaking through the window and side of the plane and hitting her, or her being thrust half way out the broken window and dangle in the airstream for a few minutes.

Even assuming exposure to a pure vaccum, such would not have been enough to kill her.  She probably died of internal injuries due to impact with the fuselage.

Phillidelphia department of public health say the woman died of blunt force trauma to the head, neck and torso.

Unless she was oriented head first as she went through the window, the contortion required to force her upper body, head and neck forced through the window aperture probably killed her instantly.

Even if she was oriented head first, the pressure of the slip stream bending her backward and slamming her against the side of fuselage while she was half in and half out probably also cause massive fatal internal injuries.