View Full Version : Qantas Incident At LAX, The Real Story.

17th Jan 2004, 09:42
In the official report issued by the ATSB it says.


Following take-off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), the crew of the B747-438 aircraft noticed a severe airframe jolt while conducting a climbing left turn. The cockpit instruments indicated that the number-1 engine exhaust gas temperature was rising through 900 degrees C. Passengers also reported flames emanating from the number-1 engine tailpipe.

The crew shut down the number-1 engine and returned the aircraft to LAX for a one- engine inoperative landing.


Now the report of that in today's Courier Mail needed to be more exciting. :rolleyes:

They listed all the famous people that were aboard the flight, and stated that "The Qantas B747-400 jumbo jet with 191 passengers aboard bound for New York, returned on one engine to Los Angeles International Airport"

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ;)

17th Jan 2004, 10:55
Hey, Lame, 'nanabender reporters, whaddya expect? I'm only surprised that they didn't blame a broken fan-belt!!

Kind regards

TheNightOwl.:p :p :ok:

17th Jan 2004, 12:42
Sat "Courier Mail"

Qantas jet fire leads to Boeing overhaul

AIRCRAFT manufacturer Boeing has ordered changes in the way its international passenger planes are maintained after fire broke out in a Qantas jet engine. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's investigation into the incident over Los Angeles in December 2002 has blamed a single blade inside the aircraft's number one port-side jet engine which broke free just after take off.

A loud cracking noise was heard by passengers and crew when the blade broke free, violently jolting the aircraft and causing a small fire to break out in the Rolls-Royce engine.

The Qantas 747-400 jumbo jet carrying 191 passengers bound for New York returned on one engine to Los Angeles International Airport, where fire rescue crews were waiting.

Several VIPs were aboard the aircraft, including News Limited chairman Lachlan Murdoch and his wife, supermodel Sarah O'Hare, as well as former Ansett chairman and News Corporation board member Ken Cowley.

Rock star Jon Bon Jovi was also on board the plane, which was stranded on the tarmac for more than two hours as cargo, baggage and catering supplies were off-loaded on to a replacement Qantas jet.

The flight, in a replacement 747-400, eventually took off three-and-a-half hours later and the broken engine was taken back to Australia to Qantas's engine maintenance facility for a full examination.

The Transport Safety Bureau's investigators said the engine was not overdue for an overhaul, and had not undergone any major maintenance.

They concluded in their report which was released yesterday that the blade had broken free because of a crack caused by metal fatigue.

Boeing had been aware of similar failures by blades in the same series of turbofan jet engines, and in August last year the aircraft manufacturer told engineers maintaining the engines to use a special new lubricant for the blades.

It has also revised its manufacturing processes for the blades and developed a new inspection procedure to detect cracks in the blades without having to remove the engine from the aircraft.

The engine fire was just one of a series of incidents on Qantas aircraft in the past 18 months.

In July 2002, two passengers had to be administered oxygen after they experienced breathing difficulties when a white, acrid haze spread through a BAe 146-100 aircraft as it was preparing to take off from Brisbane for Alice Springs.

The fumes were later found to have been caused by an overtightened hydraulic oil coupling.

Just one month later, a Qantas jet narrowly avoided ploughing into an American charter plane during a nail-biting take-off at Los Angeles airport.


17th Jan 2004, 13:04
Boeing dont make engines

17th Jan 2004, 16:20
I think this was Captain Paul Holland on his very last trip (but not last flight) in Qantas service. What a nice bloke he is. Forty or so years of flogging around in QF service and he has an engine failure with just three flights to go! :ok:

17th Jan 2004, 16:22
:* I'm a foreigner, and so don't know (nor do I hold any particular brief for QANTAS): is the Courier Mail a Murdoch rag? The reason I ask is that the last bit of the article is absolute tabloid krap. Herewith an expression of disgust at the quality of Aussi newspapers.

Don Quixote
17th Jan 2004, 19:10
I was always under the impression that in the aviation context the term VIP is reserved for "Heads of State".

I find it hard to believe Lachlan Murdoch and Co. deserve this title.

Could somebody elaborate on when the term VIP should be used.

Ethel the Aardvark
17th Jan 2004, 23:54
Maybe it stands for Very Insignificant People.
And Yes Aussie papers are crap.

18th Jan 2004, 04:07
Well I guess if you work for a certain newspaper, and Lachlan Murdoch is your boss, when you mention him in your articles, you would call him a VIP. ;) :D

Towering Q
18th Jan 2004, 10:10
Here I was thinking the 74 had 4 engines...silly me. More newspaper reading required.:rolleyes:

18th Jan 2004, 13:07
Maybe the journo was looking for a job at with Jim Thorne at Australian Aviation- he is so full of s$#@ when it comes to reporting anything on QF..

18th Jan 2004, 14:14
What a ludicrous media article. Voice your disgust to the Courier Mail On Line Editor:

[email protected]

I already have!

Perhaps if enough people email them they may take greater care with their airline reporting. :mad:

Buster Hyman
19th Jan 2004, 06:18
The engine fire was just one of a series of Qantas incidents in the past 189 years.

In 1832, whilst sailing to Australia on the HMS Regrettable, Hudson Fysh's Great Grandfather spilled a bucket of water on deck, upsetting the cabin boy. Although a serious incident, the Captain decided that they could continue to Australia.

And it was in 1820 that Paul McGuiness' great, great Grandmother was involved in a serious Ox cart incident. The cart blew a spoke in, what the industry calls, an uncontained wagon failure. There were no serious injuries, however the Oxen needed counselling.

Qantas declined to comment on the above incidents, in relation to the LAX RFF saying; "We regret all negative matters that can concern public safety. Indeed, we are well aware of the hysteria that such occurences generate but, at the end of the day, the Oxen lived for many more years!"


19th Jan 2004, 09:19
Now the report of that in today's Courier Mail needed to be more exciting.

They listed all the famous people that were aboard the flight, and stated that "The Qantas B747-400 jumbo jet with 191 passengers aboard bound for New York, returned on one engine to Los Angeles International Airport"

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

As Torres has said - write to the editor and point out the error. Don't give 'em both barrels - they email will probably be filed with the 'Delete' key. Just the facts

19th Jan 2004, 15:56
I have to agree with the comment about aviation reporters in Australia. They are given the title of "Aviation Analysts" and that is just what they are. They analyse a potential story and put forward their point of view. Most of their stories are not news but just that, a story. They give their own perception of an issue and 8 times out of 10 it turns out to be wrong. The "Australian Aviation" magazine is a good example. Many of their articles are written 4 weeks or more before publication. They have reported that airlines are expanding here and there, using new aircraft etc. Unless they have the facts they should not report misleading information. You all have probably been through the experience of reading an article, reading the good news and only to find out it's just speculation. The writers we have in Australia should be banished to the back pages of a mag where the horoscope is because thats all they do, predict and in their own words. Terry McCrann has to be one of the worst. I take all his words with a pinch of salt, and for him to be hired by a newspaper to give his point of view is derement to the paper itself. He is boring and incorrect on many matters when they finally unfold. Now really, who is interested in the Aviation section of the paper unless you have a general interest in Aviation, serious people who want facts, not speculation, we can all speculate!!

Monkey Magic
27th Jan 2004, 15:59

Complaint listed.

Only 1 engine failed, but for some reason the crew shut down another 2 for good measure?

C'mon journo's.... invest in some common sense.

Keg I've heard the same story about Capt. Holland, although the version I heard said he never flew again. Do you know if this is true?

I've seen the photos from this incident (or accident), certainly a serious event to occur but was handled well by both the crew and the aircraft.

D*&khead journalists..........

27th Jan 2004, 23:13
Monkey, definately NOT the story I heard. The version I got was that he was so keen to get to JFK and NY for a few days (golden bid and all that) that he picked up one of the spare aircraft in LAX and took it instead almost immediately! :D

That would certainly seem to be in character!!

Feather #3
28th Jan 2004, 14:02
Having had the story chapter & verse from the F/O, Keg's version is 100% correct. They were only delayed into JFK about 2 hours after the swap.

G'day ;)

28th Jan 2004, 17:10
Ummm Keg,
Maybe he was delivering his pax to JFK asap; is that not his job? There are always a couple of aircraft spare through the day in LAX. The cabcrew from the first aircraft also went straight across to JFK. What would you have preferred them all to do?
Oh..and the schoolgirlish snipe at a man I guarantee I have known many more years that you?? Yeah, it was just that! When you're half the man and the pilot, you will be doing well indeed.

28th Jan 2004, 18:46
"Oh..and the schoolgirlish snipe at a man I guarantee I have known many more years that you?? Yeah, it was just that! When you're half the man and the pilot, you will be doing well indeed."

What's that all about? Keg is one of the few to give this forum the credability it deserves...if I was half the man and the pilot Keg is, I'd be very contented. :}

28th Jan 2004, 19:36
qfcabin, Keg wasn't having a go at Cpt Holland, comprendez??

You need to wind your sensitivity meter down a few notches.

Monkey Magic
28th Jan 2004, 20:06
Righto guys, thanks for setting the facts straight.

qfcabin, there's nothing wrong with Keg's comments, there was no malice intended.

Regardless, what 744 Capt (near retirement) ISN'T interested in a golden bid??!!

I agree with FBD's comments.


D Rate
29th Jan 2004, 07:52
Since when has any rag pruduced by "that family" of insignificant wannabes been anymore than a comic strip.....

News Limited is LIMITED NEWS.:ok:

29th Jan 2004, 09:42
Geez Qfcabin, you need to go back and have a look at my comments about Captain Holland on the first page. I have the UTMOST respect for the gentleman. I'd be quite content being half the man (and pilot) he is. He did my very first trip in Qantas and I'll be eternally grateful for the way in which he integrated me with zero knowledge into the operation and set me up for the future as a S/O with QF.

I've spoken to a few of the other lads that have had engine failures in QF- one of whom continued on his journey and the other who downed tools and BOTH of them have stated that dowining tools was the 'better' option. IE, the bloke who continued on has commented directly to me that in hindsight, it probably wasn't the best thing to do to continue to destination after changing aircraft!

As for what where they to do? There are LOTS of pilots and cabin crew in LAX. I'm sure a replacement crew wouldn't have been too many dramas to sort out- but that would mean that the original crew may not have got a few day slip in NYK. If I was in the same situation I probably would have made the same D. See, no problems there.

Have to say though, from a PILOTS perspective, after an engine failure and subsequent engine out return, the passengers and getting to the destination NOW are the LAST on my list of things to consider. Whether I consider myself fit to fly is the absolute FIRST.

Fair dinkum it never ceases to amaze me how some people on here shoot first and ask questions later! :confused: :( Have a nice day!

To those who support me, thanks for the comments. :D :ok:

And DA, someone who is half the man I am is probably six inches tall. I don't exactly bother the height measurement people much. I got the nickname 'Keg' because of my dimensions- short and round! :D

29th Jan 2004, 12:26
Steady now KEG.... it is obvious that you have not yet mastered the Domestic Zen I tried so hard to inculcate!

Have a deep breath,............... imagine the sound of payslips falling gently to earth......... and try not to focus on exacting terrible revenge on the ugly dial of SOMEONE WHO DESPERATELY NEEDS....... whoops I almost lost it there myself!!!

Time to go back to the mantra... four extra tonnes.... four extra tonnes... four extra tonnes... ahh thats better.

To those who have not met KEG, I can indeed testify that he is twice the man you think he is, as are I. Between us we proabaly make up one Captain Holland, but we also make up one hell of a Blues Brothers act at "The Truck...":cool: :cool: