After 2 serious 737 MAX engine incidents at Southwest, Boeing alerts pilots
Last year, two Southwest Airlines 737 MAX jets lost engines on takeoff after striking large birds, emergencies made much more serious when smoke and fumes penetrated inside the airplanes.
Flight crews on both aircraft — one taking off from Havana, Cuba, the other from New Orleans — followed procedures and made emergency landings back at the airports.
Recognizing an abnormally high risk in these two unusual incidents, Boeing sent an alert to airlines in February to make sure pilots know the correct procedure in such an emergency to quickly stop the penetration of smoke and fumes.
In response, United conducted “a thorough review of training and existing procedural guidance for our pilots.” Southwest and American sent notices to their pilots detailing what had happened and explicitly flagging the right procedure to use.
The goal was to minimize the risk of catastrophe if pilots facing a similar incident didn’t handle it as well as the two Southwest crews did. Yet a detail in Boeing’s alert — mention of a system on the MAX’s LEAP engine the pilots hadn’t known about — caused concern among some pilots.
That system, a fail-safe feature developed by engine maker CFM International, worked as designed to constrain even worse damage to and a potential breakup of the engine.
But pilots want to know more about the system, which is not in their manuals, and how exactly it performed in these two incidents.
Southwest’s notice said it intends to update its flight manual for the MAX with information about the system. But that hasn’t been issued yet.
“We haven’t been told a lot,” said Tom Nekouei, vice president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Union, or SWAPA. “We’re still kind of in limbo.”
An engine system that’s news to the pilots
A confidential hotline complaint — which The Seattle Times reviewed —submitted to the FAA under the whistleblower protection system by a Southwest pilot likens the withholding of information about the LRD to Boeing’s hiding of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, that was a prime cause of the two fatal MAX crashes five years ago.
Yet while MCAS was a badly flawed design, there’s no indication the LRD is defective.
The birds that struck the two Southwest engines “significantly exceed the size and weight” of those used in required certification tests, and yet “the engines performed as designed during these events,” said CFM spokesperson Nathan Hicks.
And although the LRD is new to the 737 on the MAX model, CFM says the system is also on the 787 Dreamliner and 777 engines, both made by GE.
Still, American Airlines captain and APA spokesperson Tajer is unhappy.
“While this engine safety system appears to have a necessary function, we continue to seek information,” he said. “How does it impact the engine indications during an engine failure with severe damage? And why did the engine sump fail to contain its oil?”
“The FAA has not fully considered the weight of this compound emergency and its risk to safely recovering the airplane,” Tajer added.
Likewise, Southwest’s Nekouei is angry that after two serious incidents he doesn’t know more about the LRD system.
“They have never briefed us,” he said.
In a statement, Boeing said “we continue to work with CFM to learn more about this matter and we are keeping the FAA and our operators informed of any learnings.”
The FAA said it “will determine if action needs to be taken as its investigation proceeds.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/after-2-serious-737-max-engine-incidents-at-southwest-boeing-alerts-pilots/