The engine failure that forced a Southwest flight to an emergency landing after a passenger was partially sucked out a window and later died bore similarities…
The engine failure that forced a Southwest flight to an emergency landing after a passenger was partially sucked out a window and later died bore similarities to a 2016 incident with the same airline, according to reports.
In August 2016, Southwest Flight 3472, a Boeing 737-700 en route from New Orleans to Orlando, was forced to land in Pensacola, Florida, after an engine failed, CNN reported .
Debris from the engine’s inlet damaged the fuselage and wing, but the passenger cabin wasn’t breached, according to initial findings by the National Transportation Safety Board, published that September.
No one was injured in the 2016 incident, which also involved a detached engine fan blade and appeared to show signs of metal fatigue, according to the NTSB.
“The fracture surface of the missing blade showed curving crack arrest lines consistent with fatigue crack growth,” the NTSB said in a news release about the earlier incident.
The NTSB didn’t name the exact engine model in the 2016 incident, but the board named CFM International, the manufacturer of the engine that failed Tuesday, as being a subject of the probe, CNN reported.
In August 2017, the Federal Aviation Administration suggested a requirement for airlines to use ultrasound to inspect fan blades of certain CFM56-7B engines.
The FAA said late Wednesday that it will issue a directive within two weeks requiring inspections of certain CFM56-7B engines. It will require ultrasonic inspections of fan blades when they reach a certain number of takeoffs and landings.
It was not immediately clear whether such a rule would have applied to the failed engine in Tuesday’s flight, because there are many CFM56-7B variants.
“There are various iterations of that (engine) and so I can’t say exactly what that airworthiness directive might have applied to at this point, but that will be part of our investigation,” NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said.
Meanwhile, it emerged that Southwest clashed with CFM over the timing of proposed inspections and with federal regulators over costs in the aftermath of the 2016 incident, Reuters reported, citing public documents.
CFM — a joint venture of General Electric and France’s Safran — suggested a shorter examination period than some carriers wanted, of no more than 12 months.
Southwest told the FAA in October that airlines needed 18 months and that only certain fan blades should be inspected, not all 24 in engines.
“SWA does NOT support the CFM comment on reducing compliance time to 12 months,” Southwest wrote, according to Reuters.
Airlines are not required to track each individual fan blade within an engine, making it harder for investigators to be certain whether the engine that exploded Tuesday was part of a group being targeted for inspection, according to the NTSB.
The agency said that one of the fan blades on Flight 1380 broke Tuesday and fatigue cracks were found on the inside of the blade.
