This flight is an uncontained engine failure. Even the emergency AD issued after the incident says it was "in-flight fan blade failure and uncontained forward release of debris on a CFM56-7B turbofan engine." Sure, the containment ring was intact, but the purpose of that is to prevent debris from exiting at a "high radial speed". In this case, debris did exit at a high radial speed, so the containment ring did not properly contain the failure and debris struck the fuselage and wing, meaning the failure was uncontained. ChrisG50042 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply The strict definitions of "contained" and "uncontained" apply to the blades in the core of the engine. The accident report says "Impact marks on the fan case and inlet, along with the recovered blade fragments, indicated that the fan blade tip and mid-span pieces exited the fan case and entered the inlet along a forward helical path." This forward path is within the limits that make this a contained engine failure. The significance of this is that the damage to the aircraft was caused by fan cowl components, not directly from any detached blade. The focus of the remedial work is on redesign of the cowl. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply