Extremely similar to Southwest flight 1380 which killed a person in the US after they were partially sucked out of a broken window from an engine failure.
I was going to reply that I thought the Boeing 737 was also hands down the most popular commercial airplane model in current use, so of course it would have more high profile issues. Then I did a quick web search and apparently the Airbus A320 is actually more popular since 2025, otherwise they’re fairly close to even. Yet these things only seem to happen to Boeing.
So yeah, never mind, fair game to blame Boeing actually.
That wouldn't work because the Cg would be too far forward and the mechanical moment of pylons would be far too great. What needs to happen is proper redesign of the CFM56-7B engine cowl to contain fan, LP, and HP failures.
The CFM56 cowl redesign to prevent fan blade off uncontained failure is still unfixed. The FAA gave Boeing/CFM an unreasonable amount of time to address the issue. This is similar to the bungled handling of MCAS.
I thought that the speed of the air moving outside of the plane had a bigger impact on the pressure imbalance that causes someone to be "sucked out" of plane. It appears that is a false belief, the inside/outside pressure difference is from the artificial pressurization of the internal cabin. I blame a high school physics teacher for the memorable "why does a soft top convertible poof out when driving fast?" question as a preamble to explaining bernoulli for my false assumption.
I learned about the artificial pressurization not too long ago. But until I read your comment, I assumed that in a case like that, the inside and outside pressures would balance shortly and the sucking would cease. Now it occurred to me that maybe the pressurization system will continue to try to compensate pressure in a situation where pressure can´t be stabilized due to a broken window, which would cause the sucking to go on. Not sure if that would be the case. Anyone knows what happens?
I believe standard protocol is for the pilot to reduce altitude until they are at a pressure that is fine to be at (<10k feet). Then they can make an emergency landing plan (or burn off fuel as in this case)
From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk65knkyzdo
Media reports in Greece and Germany quoted passengers describing a loud bang followed by the window breaking and oxygen masks falling from the ceiling shortly after the Boeing 737 had taken off.
They believe the window was smashed by pieces of the jet's engine - although Ryanair has not commented on this.
First place to look when this sort of thing happens is pprune.org - lots of pilots on there, often with specific knowledge of the aircraft type and/or of the incident itself.
Look, it's cheap. You either get safety or low cost. If they introduced no-window flights for 1€ there will be many who will buy those flights. So there, stop whining, accept the shïte.
Ryanair has only ever lost a plane once, due to a bird strike with only some injuries, and they are one of biggest airlines by number of flights (if not the biggest).
Turns out plane accidents are expensive, and the reputation loss as well. Don't even need to lose the plane, just the plane being stuck on the ground is expensive (they are also one of the most timely airlines because of this). Really can not afford to have accidents!
Well, this isn’t very typical, I’d like to make that point.
Look, the windows not supposed to fall off, for a start. These things are built to rigorous aeronautical engineering standards — cardboard’s out, cardboard derivatives, no cellotape, no string. So chance in a million, really.
And to be clear, the plane that the window fell off was flown to safety. So there’s nothing out there but birds, air, wind and clouds… and the window that fell off.
Well there are a lot of these airplanes going around the world all the time, and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don’t want people thinking that airplanes aren’t safe.
Fan and turbine failures are supposed to be contained by the engine casing - it's part of certification. The interesting part of this story is therefore why it wasn't contained.
Turboprops can't, of course, contain a propellor failure which is why they have a big slab of armour in line with the prop disk. So in that case, yes, safety wins over cost and weight.
In the case of the Quantas A380 departing from Changi some shrapnel from the engine explosion did go through the aircraft's body, cutting cables, making a mess of the control-command systems. I don't know how one could contain the kind of energy imparted to these metal bits, especially on engines with so much power...
Fan blade failures are supposed to be contained. Turbine disk failures are not. This leads to several characteristics: disks are life-limited parts where they must be removed after so many cycles, no fuel tanks are within the burst axis of disks, and the flight ceiling of airliners is dictated by the fact that you can get holes and the cabin can (at >1e-9/flight hour) rapidly depressurize.
The comment you are replying to is a reference to a famous comedy skit (about the whole front of an oceanliner falling off, and the official company response).
Would it be strange to not have any windows on a plane? You could put thin oled panels on the wall instead. Seems like that would be more structurally sound.
I could see this being a safety issue if there’s a problem with the wing or engine and the panels fail, so zero visibility. Its why they ask you to open the window blinds during take off and landing
Hopefully someone can give a more informed comment. For me, it's the seats directly in-line with the first turbine, and a few seats back.
edit: Well, I hope we are beyond boohoo LLM based info now. Here is Fable 5's explanation, and I loosely verified it:
Simplified:
> I'd like to avoid seats in the rotor burst zone: the rows roughly in line with the plane of the engine's fan and turbine disks, plus a few rows fore and aft of that.
More details:
> The term you're looking for is the rotor burst zone — sometimes called the uncontained engine rotor failure (UERF) debris zone. That's the phrase an aerospace engineer or pilot would immediately recognize.
> Here's the physics behind it: the fan, compressor, and turbine disks in a jet engine spin at enormous speeds (turbine disks can exceed 10,000 RPM). If a disk or blade lets go and the containment case can't hold it, the fragments fly out tangentially — meaning they travel in the plane of rotation of that disk, perpendicular to the engine's axis. They don't spray forward or backward much; they carve out a relatively narrow band.
> FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 20-128A, which designers use to minimize hazards from these events) models the debris path as the plane of each rotor stage plus roughly ±15 degrees fore and aft of it. Since an engine has multiple rotor stages spread along its length, the combined hazard band along the fuselage is a few rows wide, centered roughly abeam the engines.
> A report in a Hungarian publication claims, "A passenger was sucked into the window by the change in air pressure, with the 61-year-old man's head sticking out of the plane. Witnesses say his wife grabbed him, which was the reason he wasn't pulled out of the plane by the lower air pressure outside." [translation by Google]
62 comments
[ 226 ms ] story [ 2267 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
So yeah, never mind, fair game to blame Boeing actually.
They believe the window was smashed by pieces of the jet's engine - although Ryanair has not commented on this.
In this case: https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/672872-ryanair-...
“>Glad it turned out well.
>Wonder what the Ryanair social media team is going to do with this one
Ryanair introducing new additional charge to have a window.”
Turns out plane accidents are expensive, and the reputation loss as well. Don't even need to lose the plane, just the plane being stuck on the ground is expensive (they are also one of the most timely airlines because of this). Really can not afford to have accidents!
Look, the windows not supposed to fall off, for a start. These things are built to rigorous aeronautical engineering standards — cardboard’s out, cardboard derivatives, no cellotape, no string. So chance in a million, really.
And to be clear, the plane that the window fell off was flown to safety. So there’s nothing out there but birds, air, wind and clouds… and the window that fell off.
"debris from a dramatic engine failure caused damage to the aircraft's window"
That's high-velocity pieces of metal. Hard to prevent that from shattering a window if engine housing didn't catch it.
How much stronger, thicker & heavier you want to make those windows? Costing how much more fuel? To save how many lives per year?
I'd think airplane builders (note: not airlines!) are more qualified to make that calculation than armchair safety 'experts'.
Turboprops can't, of course, contain a propellor failure which is why they have a big slab of armour in line with the prop disk. So in that case, yes, safety wins over cost and weight.
More discussion in: Airliners.net: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1510797&...
Seriously though, as an aviation geek, I always avoid those seats when given a choice.
edit: Well, I hope we are beyond boohoo LLM based info now. Here is Fable 5's explanation, and I loosely verified it:
Simplified:
> I'd like to avoid seats in the rotor burst zone: the rows roughly in line with the plane of the engine's fan and turbine disks, plus a few rows fore and aft of that.
More details:
> The term you're looking for is the rotor burst zone — sometimes called the uncontained engine rotor failure (UERF) debris zone. That's the phrase an aerospace engineer or pilot would immediately recognize.
> Here's the physics behind it: the fan, compressor, and turbine disks in a jet engine spin at enormous speeds (turbine disks can exceed 10,000 RPM). If a disk or blade lets go and the containment case can't hold it, the fragments fly out tangentially — meaning they travel in the plane of rotation of that disk, perpendicular to the engine's axis. They don't spray forward or backward much; they carve out a relatively narrow band.
> FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 20-128A, which designers use to minimize hazards from these events) models the debris path as the plane of each rotor stage plus roughly ±15 degrees fore and aft of it. Since an engine has multiple rotor stages spread along its length, the combined hazard band along the fuselage is a few rows wide, centered roughly abeam the engines.
Points for the wife!
(from https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/672872-ryanair-...)
So this guy should be ready for a year of TOTAL housework dedication.
Colloquially speaking, it sucks. It’s like saying vacuum cleaners technically blow. It might be true but everybody knows it as sucking.
Checkmate, science!
Or else: Ryanair Boeing 737 passenger sucked toward broken window after midair engine failure.