Seems like a great crew of people to be aboard the aircraft on this day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYh4vWd9UEw

It's sort of scary jet engine manufacturers are not required to design engines with stronger casings capable of containing metal parts after catastrophic engine disintegration. I mean, what if parts from the exploding No. 2 engine had hit engine No. 1? They could have lost two engines, on the same side, and might not have been able to maintain altitude given they were still fairly full of fuel. Also airframe manufacturers could do a better job of protecting electrical/hydraulic/fuel lines inside the wings: What would have happened if the fuel leaking from the ruptured tanks had caught fire? Should a single engine be able to put a 4-engine aircraft at risk?Cheers,- jahman.

The cowling of an engine such as that is in fact designed to absorb most of the impact from a broken fan blade in flight or a bird, o something comparable.As for a fuel leak, I would imagine a system that auto closed the line, much in the same manner foam can be pumped into a tire to have it run flat, will be developed if it has not already.

Also I think the tendency to put engines in pods rather than in the wing is intended to minimise consequential damage if a rotating component bursts at speed. The centrifugal force on the turbine blades must be immense.

The cowling of an engine such as that is in fact designed to absorb most of the impact from a broken fan blade in flight or a bird, o something comparable.

Yes, but the failure was in the rear at the intermediate pressure spool turbine disc and was completely uncontained.

As for a fuel leak, I would imagine a system that auto closed the line, much in the same manner foam can be pumped into a tire to have it run flat, will be developed if it has not already.

Fuel wasn't leaking from a line, rather from holes in the tanks. WWII bombers had self-sealing tanks as you suggest, but I guess they were deemed unnecessary with the advent of peace.

Also I think the tendency to put engines in pods rather than in the wing is intended to minimise consequential damage if a rotating component bursts at speed.

Not really: The engines are placed so the intake sits below and ahead of the leading edge of the wing in the pressure zone of the bow wave. This pre-compression slightly increases engine efficiency.

The centrifugal force on the turbine blades must be immense.

It is: Passengers are lucky no one was injured from the shrapnel hitting the fuselage (a 1.7 mm thick sheet of aluminum: That's all between you and the void!)Cheers,- jahman.

I guess it isn't considered feasible to contain every possible engine catastrophic failure mode. But there is design requirement for the likely trajectory of uncontained engine parts. And while there was serious damage, the aircraft was able to land safely. So by and large I would say the design was validated. The one thing about all the automation today is that there is almost too much info produced and the problem is trying to prioritize all the warnings/alarms.scott s..

I guess it isn't considered feasible to contain every possible engine catastrophic failure mode. But there is design requirement for the likely trajectory of uncontained engine parts. And while there was serious damage, the aircraft was able to land safely. So by and large I would say the design was validated. The one thing about all the automation today is that there is almost too much info produced and the problem is trying to prioritize all the warnings/alarms.scott s..

The only way to make it better would be to have engineers again that would get the systems messages and the pilots that would get the flight messages. That is something that won't happen again though so the automation is the best solution. As you heard from this video the failure was so unusual that they couldn't even reproduce it in the simulator accurately.