Agreed that external flames were observed, and an explosion or loud bang of sorts or series of, was heard to have taken place within the engine. What I objected to was the journalistic use of 'plane engine explodes in mid-air', (as observed verbatim in the link above) when the engine itself remains intact and has plainly not exploded.
My original question still stands. What language would then remain to describe it, if and when an engine actually did 'explode'?
In the meantime I am happy to see that the language was subsequently toned down.