Talk:Turbine engine failure

Time of failure
The article needs a discussion of the varying importance of a failure, depending on the time it happens. Particular attention is needed to Rejected takeoff (RTO), Engine failure at takeoff (EFATO), and the impact of Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards (ETOPS).LeadSongDog come howl  03:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Engine separation
Would complete separation of the engine itself (as in El Al Flight 1862 and American Airlines Flight 191) count as a contained or uncontained failure? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No it would not. Those failures were primarily failures of the devices which attach the pylon under the wing, not of the suspended pod or the engines within the pod. Such devices in some designs are called mechanical fuses or shear pins and like other fuses are designed to prevent catastrophic overloads to the wing structure by freeing the pod from the wing at a lesser overload - still more than the nominal range of forces. In these two accidents, they failed at a lower force than they should have.

LeadSongDog come howl!  20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-write and re-name
This article needs re-writing and re-naming to Engine Failure as it is too narrow in subject matter. It needs to cover all modes of engine failure, for all types of engine to make a meaningful encyclopedia entry--Petebutt (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In aviation, there are basically two types of engines, piston and turbine. Piston engines are similar to a car engine, and fail more commonly that turbine engines, most commonly due to fuel starvation. Since turbine engines are expected to be more reliable than piston engines, and malfunctions of a turbine engine tend to be more high profile and notable than those of a piston engine, turbine engine, piston engine failures do not merit an article, whereas turbine engines do.


 * Turbine engine failures come with a complex series of consequences and procedures, whereas piston engines, being primarily used in light aircraft today, are much simpler and cold not fill in article. Perhaps a section on engine failure in the light aircraft article? Skrelk (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps he is referring to all types of turbine engines, not ALL types of engines. Seriously, why does this only discuss jet engines? The phrase "turbine engine failure" is only used when a jet-powered aircraft has an engine failure? Really? A turboshaft is a turbine engine. A turboprop is a turbine engine. But this says that a "turbine engine failure is when a turbine engine ceases to produce thrust". That clearly leaves out anything other than jets. Turboshafts don't produce "thrust", they produce power. All of the modes of failure listed here, everything, is clearly only talking about issues for jet engines. A helicopter jet engine is far less at risk to bird ingestion than a turbofan. They are unlikely to have "flames coming out the exhaust pipe". I also would ask: "what is it called when a peak-production gas turbine generator in a power plant fails"? If "turbine engine failure" only refers to, specifically, turbine-powered jet aircraft, then I guess they have to call it something else. What about turbine engines used onboard vessels? A lot of these engines are simply modifications of aircraft engines, so it would seem like the same words ought to apply to them. Hell, for that matter, what about steam turbines? Do those never fail? "Turbine engine failure" is way too broad to cover only what is covered in this article. That's like a page called "engine failure" that only covers failures in gasoline-fueled, piston-engined road vehicles. Kind of missing a lot there. This ought to be retitled as "Aircraft engine failure", and it ought to have a section discussing potential failures for each type of engine. A lot of what it says in this article could be applied to any type of engine, and would only need to be said once; they could easily be fit into a reasonable length article. Alternatively, it could be re-titled "Gas-turbine aircraft jet engine failure", and left as it is (which seems like a bad idea to me). Or, you could leave the title as Turbine engine failure, and make the article actually cover the entire topic of turbine engine failures, not just jet-powered turbine aircraft. I just don't see how using such a broad title is justified on an article of such narrow scope. It's misleading and it's leaving a lot of important information out..45Colt 22:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Contained failures
The article says

Engine enclosures are not designed to contain broken turbines, rather the turbines are designed not to break

But according to this Rolls Royce documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfomloUg2Gw (start at 40 min, 30 sec)  engine cases are designed to contain blades, and undergo expensive testing to verify they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:2AF:AAA9:41D4:267E:2988:D9D8 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This section has been updated to refer to the "Blade off testing" article but it should still be considered to do something about the NTSB comment, since the source article doesn't offer proof of standard procedures or cites regulation relevant to it. RARS!!! (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 not classified as uncontained engine failure
The section "Notable uncontained engine failure incidents" contains Southwest Airlines Flight 1380. This accident is currently under investigation and has not been classified as uncontained yet and I doubt that it ever will be. I suggest removal of this accident from the article section. - Samf4u (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)